Natural Gas

Highlights Over the 2021-22 period, renewable capacity will account for 90% of global electricity-generation additions, per the IEA's latest forecast. This will follow the 45% surge (y/y) in renewable generation capacity added last year, which occurred despite the COVID-19 pandemic (Chart of the Week). Continued investment in renewables and EVs – along with a global economic rebound – are pushing forecasts at banks and trading companies to a $13k - $20k/MT range for copper, vs. ~ $10.6k/Mt (~ $4.80/lb) at present. Should these stronger metals forecasts prove out, investments that extend low-carbon use of fossil fuels via carbon-capture and circular-use technologies will become more attractive. Investment in these technologies has been limited because there is no explicit global reference price to assess investments against. A carbon market or tax would provide such a bogey and accelerate investment. It could be monitored via a Carbon Market Club, which would limit trade to states posting and collecting the tax.1 Feature At almost 280GW, renewable energy capacity additions last year increased 45% y/y, the most since 1999, according to the IEA's most recent update on renewable energy.2 For this year and next, renewables are expected to account for 90% of capacity additions, led by solar PV investment increasing ~ 50% to 162GW. Wind capacity grew 90% last year, increasing to 114GW, and is expected to increase ~ 50% to end-2022. As renewables generation – and EV investment – continues to grow, demand for bulks (steel and iron ore) and base metals, led by copper, will pull prices higher. This is occurring against a backdrop of flat supply growth and physical deficits over the four years ended 2020 (Chart 2). According to the IEA, a 40% increase in steel and copper prices over the September 2020 to March 2021 period played a role in higher solar PV module prices. Chart of the WeekRenewables Capacity Surges The supply side of the copper market will remain in deficit this year and next, in our assessment, and may continue on that trajectory if, as Wood Mackenzie expects, demand grows at a 2% p.a. rate over the next 20 years and miners remain reluctant to commit to the capex required to keep up with demand.3 Chart 2Physical Deficits Will Draw Copper Stocks... ESG risk for copper – and other metals required to build the generation and infrastructure required in the renewables buildout – will increase as prices rise, which also will add to cost.4 Cost increases coupled with increasing ESG risks in this buildout will increase the attractiveness of carbon-capture and circular-economy technology investment, in our view. This would extend the use of low-carbon fossil fuels if the technology can move the world closer to a net-zero carbon future. However, unless and until policy catalyzes this investment, – e.g., via a global carbon trading price or tax – investment in these technologies likely will continue to languish. Carbon-Capture Tech's Unfulfilled Promise The history of Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage (CCUS) has been one of high hopes and unmet expectations. It is generally recognized as a route to mitigate climate change; however, its deployment has been slower than expected. Low-carbon technology requires more critical metals than its fossil-fuel counterpart (Chart 3). Apart from the issue of cost, the ESG risks of mining metals for the renewable energy transition will increase as more metals are demanded, which we discussed in previous research.5 According to Wood Mackenzie, mining companies will need to invest nearly $1.7 trillion in the next 15 years to help supply enough metals to transition to a low carbon world.6 Chart 3Low-Carbon Tech Is Metals Intensive Given these looming physical requirements for metals, fossil fuels most likely will need to be used for longer than markets currently anticipate, as a bridge to the low-carbon future, or as part of that future, depending on how successfully carbon is removed from the hydrocarbons used to power modern society. If so, using fossil fuels while mitigating their environmental impact will require highly focused technology to lower CO2 and other green-house gas (GHG) emissions during the transition to a low-carbon future. Enter CCUS technology: This technology traps CO2 from sources that use fossil fuels or biomass to make the energy required to run modern societies. In the current iterations of this technology, CO2 can either be compressed and transported, or stored in geological or oceanic reservoirs. This can then be used for Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) to extract harder-to-reach oil by injecting CO2 into the reservoirs holding the hydrocarbons.7 The Scope For CCUS Investment CCUS investment spending is increasing, as are the number of planned facilities using or demonstrating this technology. In the 2020 edition of its Energy Technology Perspectives, the IEA noted 30 new integrated CCUS facilities have been announced since 2017, mostly in advanced economies such as US and Europe, but also in some EM nations. As of 2020, projects at advanced stages of planning represented a total of $27  billion, more than double the investment planned in 2017 (Chart 4). Among its many goals, the Paris Agreement seeks a balance between emissions by man-made sources and removal by greenhouse gas (GHGs) sinks (absorption of the gases) in the second half of the 21st century. Practically, many countries – especially EM economies – will still need to use fossil fuels to develop during this period (Chart 5).8 Chart 4Carbon-Capture Projects To Date Chart 5EM Development Will Require Fossil-Fuel Energy CCUS In The Energy Sector As a fuel that emits fewer GHGs than coal – i.e., half the CO2 of coal – natural gas can be used effectively as a bridge to green-power generation (Chart 6). Chart 6Natural Gas Will Remain Attractive As A Bridge Fuel The CO2 in natgas needs to be removed before dry gas is sold as pipeline-quality gas or LNG. This CO2 is normally vented to the atmosphere; however, by using CCUS technology, it can be reinjected into geological formations and used for EOR. For this reason, LNG companies in the US, the world’s largest LNG exporter, have been looking into investing in CCUS technology in a bid to become greener.9 CCUS can also be used to produce low-cost hydrogen – so-called blue hydrogen – using natural gas and coal, as opposed to the more expensive electrolysis process, which uses renewables-based electricity to produce "green" hydrogen. The lower blue-hydrogen costs will make clean hydrogen more accessible to emerging nations, opening new avenues for the world to use the energy carrier in its decarbonization effort. The Value Of Ccus In Other Industries CCUS technology can be retrofitted to existing power and industrial plants, which, according to the IEA, could otherwise still emit 8 billion tons of CO2 in 2050, around one-quarter of annual energy-sector emissions in 2020. Of the fossil fuel generators, coal-fired power generation presents the biggest CO2 challenge, with most of the emissions coming from China and other EM Asia nations, where the average plant age is less than 20 years. Since the average age of a coal fired power plant is 40 years, according to the US National Association of Regulatory Commissioners, this implies that these plants have a long remaining life and could still be operating until 2050. CCUS is the only alternative to retiring or repurposing existing power and industrial plants. The IEA believes that CCUS is imperative to reach net-zero carbon emissions. In its Sustainable Development Scenario - in which global CO2 emissions from the energy sector decline to net-zero by 2070 – CCUS accounts for 15% of the cumulative reduction in emissions. If the world needs to reach net-zero by 2050 instead, it will need almost 50% more CCUS deployment.10 Properly implemented and scaled, CCUS can allow industries to continue using oil, gas and coal and to attain net-zero carbon emission targets, boosting demand for fossil fuels in the medium term. This is especially important to EM development. Why Aren’t We Further Along In CCUS? What Can Be Done? The main reason CCUS isn’t used more widely is because of its cost. Currently, the cost of capturing carbon varies, based on the amount of CO2 concentration, with Direct Air Capture being most expensive (Chart 7). Given the prohibitive costs, CCUS has not been commercially viable. However, the same argument could have been used against implementing renewable sources of energy. While at one point the Levelized Cost of Energy from renewable sources was high, as these sources have been scaled up – aided in no small part by government subsidies – costs have fallen, following something akin to a Moore’s Law cost-decay curve. A Levelized Cost of Energy for solar generation reported by Lazard Ltd., which allows for comparisons across technologies (e.g., fossil-fuel vs renewable), shows generation costs fell by 89% to $40/MWh from $359/MWh from 2009-2019 (Chart 8). This learning curve was able to take place because of government subsidies, which promoted the deployment of solar technology. Chart 7CCUS Can Be Expensive Chart 8Subsides Could Support CCUS, Just As Was Done For Solar The cost of CCUS technology is falling. For example, in 2019 the Global CCS Institute reported it cost $100/ton to capture carbon from the Canada-based Boundary Dam using a CCS unit built in 2014. The cost of carbon captured at the US-based Petra Nova plant – built three years later – using improved technology was $65/ton. Both are coal-powered electricity plants. The report also noted coal-fired power plants planning to commence operations in 2024-28 using the same CCS technology as those at Boundary Dam and Petra Nova expect carbon costs to be ~ $43/ton, due to steeper learning curves, research, lower capital costs due to economies of scale, and digitalization. One commonality amongst these sources of cost reductions is that companies need to invest more into CCUS and familiarize themselves with this technology. As was the case with renewables, government subsidies would reduce the prohibitive costs of operating CCUS technology, and draw more participation to refining this technology. Early, first-of-its-kind CCUS will be expensive, however subsidies in the form of capital support or tax credits will increase CCUS implementation and research. Boundary Dam and Petra Nova are examples of facilities that benefitted from government subsidies. The facilities received $170 million and $200 million respectively from Canadian and US Government agencies at the time of the CCS units’ construction. The US has also implemented a 45Q tax credit system which pays facilities $50/ton of CO2 stored and $35/ton of CO2 if it is used in applications like Enhanced Oil Recovery. According to the Global CCS Institute, in late-2019, of the eight new CCUS projects that were added in the US, four cited the presence of 45Q as the key driver. Putting Carbon Markets And Taxes To Work The EU’s Emissions Trading System (ETS) market, which was implemented in 2005, is an example of innovative policy which incentivizes companies to curb emissions, using market forces. The price of carbon measured in these markets puts a tangible value on a negative externality, which before this went unrecorded. The downside of this ETS is its reliance on the EU's environmental policy implementation, which is subject to policy changes that complicate supply-demand analysis for longer-term planning – e.g., the recent increase in its emissions target to a minimum of 55% net reduction in GHG emissions by 2030. An alternative to policy-driven trading of emissions rights is a per-ton tax on emissions, which governments would impose and collect. This would raise costs of technologies using fossil fuels – including those used in the mining industry to increase supply of critical bulks and base metals needed for the renewables transition. At the same time, such a tax would give firms supplying and using technologies that raise CO2 levels an incentive to lower CO2 output using CCUS technologies. ETS markets and governments imposing CO2 taxes could form Carbon Market Clubs – a technology developed by William Nordhaus, the 2018 Nobel Laureate in Economics – that restrict trading to states that can demonstrate their participation and support of actual carbon-reduction detailed in the Paris Agreement via trading or tax schemes.11 As the green energy transition gains traction and governments implement more net-zero emissions policies, the price of carbon will rise. As the price of carbon rises, the price tag associated with companies’ carbon emissions will increase with it. With market participants expecting the price of carbon to continue to rise after hitting record values, the incentive for companies operating in the EU to use CCUS technology will rise, as would the incentive for firms facing a carbon tax.12 Bottom Line: Given the meteoric price rise of green metals, underfunded capex, and the ESG risks associated with mining metals for the low carbon future, we expect fossil fuels to play a larger role in the transition to a low-carbon society than markets are currently expecting. For countries to be able to use fossil fuels while ensuring they achieve their climate goals, the use of CCUS technology is important. To increase CCUS uptake, governments will need to subsidize this technology until demand for it gains traction, just like in the case of renewables. Encouraging ETS and carbon-tax schemes also will be required to catalyze action.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com     Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish Brent prices were knocking against the $70/bbl door going to press, following the IEA's assessment of a robust demand recovery in 2H21 (Chart 9). The IEA took its 1H21 demand growth down 270k b/d, owing to COVID-19-induced demand destruction in India, OECD Americas and Europe, but left its 2H21 estimate intact, making overall demand growth for this year 5.4mm b/d. The EIA also expects 5.4mm b/d demand growth for this year, and growth of 3.7mm b/d next year. OPEC left its full-year 2021 demand growth estimate at 6mm b/d. OPEC 2.0 meets again on June 1 and will look to return more of its sidelined production to the market, in our estimation. We will be updating our supply-demand balances and price forecasts in next week's report. Base Metals: Bullish Spot copper prices traded on either side of $4.80/lb on the CME/COMEX market this week as we went to press. Threats of a tax increase in Chile, where a bill calling for such a measure is making its way through Congress; a potential strike by mine workers; and a shortage of sulfuric acid used in the extraction of ore brought about, according to Bloomberg, by reduced global sulfur supplies due to lower refinery runs during the pandemic all are keeping copper well bid. Our target for Dec21 COMEX copper remains $5/lb (~ $11k/ton on the LME). We remain long calendar 2022 COMEX copper vs short 2023 COMEX copper expecting physical supply deficits to continue to force storage draws, which will backwardate the metal's forward curve. Precious Metals: Bullish US CPI data on Wednesday showed that headline inflation rose by 4.2% for the month of April compared to the previous year. While this increase is the highest since 2008, this jump could also be fueled by a low base effect – Inflation levels were falling this time last year as the pandemic picked up. While rising prices increases demand for gold as an inflation hedge, if the Federal Reserve increases interest rates on the back of this data, the US dollar will rise, negatively affecting gold prices (Chart 10). However, we do not expect the Fed to abruptly change its guidance on this report, and therefore expect the central bank will treat this blip as transitory. As of yesterday’s close, COMEX gold was trading at $1,835.9/oz. Ags/Softs: Neutral Going to press, the Chicago soybean market was surging ahead of the scheduled World Agriculture Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) report due out later Wednesday. Front-month beans were trading ~ $16.70/bu, up 2% on the day. This month's WASDE will contain the USDA's first estimate for demand in ag markets for the 2021/22 crop year. Markets are expecting supplies to tighten as demand strengthens. Chart 9 Chart 10   Footnotes 1     Please see Carbon Market Clubs and the New Paris Regime published by the World Bank in July 2016.  The intellectual and computational framework for such technology was developed by William Nordhaus, the 2018 Nobel Laureate in Economics. 2     Please see Renewable Energy Market Update, Outlook for 2021 and 2022.pdf, published by the IEA this week. 3    WoodMac notes, "without additional substantial investment, production will decline from 2024 onwards. Coupled with demand growth, this decline in output will lead to a theoretical shortfall of around 16 Mt by 2040."  The consultancy estimates an additional $325 - $500+ billion will be needed to meet copper demand over this period.  Please see Will a lack of supply growth come back to bite the copper industry? Published 23 March 2021 by woodmac.com. 4    Please see Renewables ESG Risks Grow With Demand, which we published 29 April 2021.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 5    Refer to footnote 4. 6    Please see Low carbon world needs $1.7 trillion in mining investment, published by Reuters. 7     This method is used to increase oil production. It changes the properties of the hydrocarbons, restores formation pressure and enhances oil displacement in the reservoir. Using EOR, oil companies can recover 30% to 60% of the original oil level in the reservoir.  Please see Enhanced Oil Recovery published by the US Department of Energy. 8    Please see the Reuter’s column CO2 emission limits and economic development. 9    Please see World Oil’s U.S. LNG players tout carbon capture in bid to boost green image. 10   Please see IEA’s Special Report on Carbon Capture Utilisation and Storage, published as a part of the Energy   Technology Perspective 2020.  11    See footnote 1 above. 12    Please see Cost of polluting in EU soars as carbon price hits record €50 by the Financial Times. Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades

Highlights US natural gas prices will remain well supported over the April-October injection season, as the global economic expansion gains traction, particularly in Europe, which also is refilling depleted storage levels. China's natgas demand is expected to rise more than 8% yoy, and EM Asia consumption also will be robust, which will revive US liquified natural gas (LNG) exports. Exports of US light-sweet crude into the North Sea Brent pricing pool – currently accounting for close to half the physical supply underpinning the global oil-price benchmark – also will increase over the course of the year, particularly in the summer, when maintenance will markedly reduce the physical supply of crudes making up the Brent index. At the margin, coal demand will increase in the US, as industrial natgas demand and LNG exports incentivize electric generators to favor coal. Higher-than-expected summer temperatures in the US also would boost coal demand.  This will be tempered somewhat in Europe, where carbon-emissions rights traded through €50/MT for the first time this week on the EU's Emission Trading System (ETA). We expect US LNG and oil exports to revive this year (Chart of the Week) and remain long natgas in 1Q22. Feature The importance of US LNG and crude oil exports out of the US Gulf to the global economy is only now becoming apparent. As demand for these fossil fuels grows and the supply side continues to confront a highly uncertain risk-reward tradeoff, their importance will only grow. In natgas markets, US LNG cargoes out of the US Gulf balanced demand coming from Asia and Europe this past winter, which was sharply colder than expected and stretched supply chains globally. As a widening economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic spurs industrial, residential and commercial demand, and inventories in Europe and Asia are re-built in preparation for next winter, US LNG exports will be called upon to meet increasing demand, particularly since they are priced attractively vs regional importing benchmarks, with differentials vs the US presently $4+/MMBtu vs Europe and $5+/MMBtu vs Asia (Chart 2).1 Chart of the WeekUS LNG, Oil Export Growth Will Rebound Chart 2Lower US Natgas Prices Encourage LNG Exports In oil markets, an ongoing kerfuffle in the pricing of Brent Blend brought about by falling North Sea crude oil production makes American light-sweet crude oil exports from the Gulf (i.e., WTI produced mostly in the Permian Basin) account for almost half of the physical supplies in this critical benchmark-pricing market.2 US LNG Exports Will Increase US natural gas prices will remain well supported as the global economic expansion gains traction, and the US and Europe open the April-October injection season well bid (Chart 3). US inventories are expected to end the Apr-Oct injection season at just over 3.7 TCF according to the EIA, very close to where they ended the 2020 injection season. Chart 3US, Europe Rebuild Storage Higher US LNG exports, industrial, commercial and residential demand will be offset by lower consumption from electric generators this year, netting to a slight decline in overall demand. The EIA expects generators to take advantage of lower generating costs to be had burning coal to produce electricity, a view we share given the current differentials in the forward curves for each fuel (Chart 4).3 On the supply side, the EIA's expecting output to remain unchanged from last year at just under 91.5 BCF/d in 2021. Higher LNG exports, even as generator demand is falling, pushes prices higher this year – averaging $3.04/MMBtu this year – which leads to a slight increase in output in 2022. For our part, we continue to expect higher prices during the November-March heating season than currently are clearing the market and remain long 1Q22 $3.50/MMBtu calls vs. short $3.75/MMbtu calls. As of Tuesday night, when we mark to market, this position was up 20.8% since inception on 8 April 2021. Chart 4Lower Prices Will Favour Increased Coal Demand Natgas demand could surprise on the upside during the injection season if air-conditioning demand comes in stronger than expected and production remains essentially unchanged this year. This could reduce LNG exports and slow the rate of inventory refill in the US, which could further advantage coal as a burner fuel for generators in the US. The US National Weather Service's Climate Prediction Center expects above-average temperatures for most of the US population centers this summer (Chart 5). This could become a semi-permanent feature of the market if current temperature trends persist (Chart 6). Based on analyses’ run by the NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information, 2021 "is very likely to rank among the ten warmest years on record," with lower (6%) odds of ranking in the top five hottest years on record.4 Chart 5Odds Of Hotter Summer Rising Chart 6Higher Global Temperatures Could Become A Recurring Phenomenon The Crude Kerfuffle As the Chart of the Week shows, US exports of light-sweet crude oil peaked at ~ 3.7mm b/d in February 2020, just before the COVID-19 pandemic hit the world full force. Exports out of the US Gulf – i.e., WTI priced against the Midland, TX, gathering hub – accounted for ~ 95% of these volumes. With exports currently running ~ 2.5mm b/d, more than 1mm b/d of readily available export capacity remains in place. Additional volumes will be developed as dredging of the Corpus Christi, TX, progresses. While the surge in US crude oil production has subsided in the wake of the pandemic, it most likely will revive as the markets return to normal operating procedure, additional dredging operations are completed, and storage facilities are built out.5 Existing and additional export capacity of the US's light-sweet crude could not arrive at a more opportune time for the Brent market, which remains in a state of uncertainty as to whether markets will have to adjust to CIF contracts or a work-around to the existing FOB pricing regime, which can be augmented to accommodate increasing WTI volumes.6 This will have to be sorted, as this is the future of the market's most important pricing index (Chart 7). The buildout in crude-oil exporting capacity – and natgas LNG exporting capacity, for that matter – ideally accommodates shale-oil- and -gas assets, which can be ramped up quickly to meet demand, and ramped down quickly as demand falters. The quick payback – 2 to 3 years – on these investments allow the producers to expand and contract output without the massive risks longer-lived conventional assets impose. As OPEC 2.0's spare capacity is returned to the market, this will be a welcome feature of a market that most likely will require oil and gas supplies for decades, despite the uncertainty attending oil-and-gas capex during the transition to a low-carbon energy future. Chart 7Permian Replaces North Sea Losses Bottom Line: As the future of hydrocarbons evolves, the LNG and crude oil exported from the US Gulf will occupy an increasingly important role in these markets. Oil and gas producers are making capex decisions under increasingly uncertain conditions, which favor exactly the type of resources that have propelled the US to the position of the world's largest producer of these fuels – i.e., shale-oil and -gas. Production from these resources can be ramped up and down quickly as prices dictate, and have quick paybacks (2-3 years), which means capital is not tied up for decades as a return is earned.7   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish OPEC 2.0 begins returning 2mm b/d to the market this month, expecting to be done by July. Half of these volumes are accounted for by Saudi Arabia, which voluntarily cut output by 1mm b/d earlier in the year to help balance the market. In line with our maintained hypothesis that OPEC 2.0 prefers prices inside the $60-$70/bbl price band, we expect the return of curtailed production to be front-loaded so as to bring prices down from current levels approaching $70/bbl for Brent (Chart 8). If, as we expect, demand recovers sooner than expected as Europe leans into its vaccination program, additional barrels will be returned to the market to get prices closer to a $60-$65/bbl range. Base Metals: Bullish The International Copper Study Group (ICSG) forecast copper mine production will increase by ~ 3.5% in 2021 and 3.7% in 2022, after adjusting for historical disruption factors. This forecasted increase – after three years of flat mined production growth – is due to a ramp-up of recently commissioned and new copper mines becoming operational in 2021. An improvement in the pandemic situation by 2022 will also boost mined copper production, according to the ICSG. 2020 production remained flat as recoveries in production in some countries due to constrained output in 2019 balanced the negative impacts of the pandemic in others. In Chile, the largest copper producer, state-owned Codelco and Collahuasi reported strong results in March. However, this was countered by a continued downturn at BHP’s Escondida. The world’s largest copper mine saw a drop in production for the eighth consecutive month. This mixed output resulted in a decline in total production of 1.2% year-on-year in March. Precious Metals: Bullish COMEX palladium touched a record high during intraday trading on Tuesday, reaching $3,019/oz due to continued tight market conditions (Chart 9). On the supply side, Nornickel is recovering from flooded mines, which occurred in February. By mid-April, one of the two affected mines was operating at 60% capacity; however, the company's other mine is only expected to come back online by early June. On the demand side, strength in US vehicle sales and a global economic recovery from the pandemic buoyed the metal used in catalytic converters. Palladium prices closed at $2,981.60/oz on Tuesday. Ags/Softs: Neutral Corn again traded above $7/bu earlier in the week on the back of drought-like dry weather conditions in Brazil's principal growing regions and surging US exports, according to Farm Futures. Chart 8 Chart 9   Footnotes 1     Stronger demand from China – where consumption is expected to rise more than 8% yoy – and EM Asia will continue to support LNG demand through the year.  S&P Global Platts Analytics expects Chinese natural gas demand to reach 12,713 Bcf in 2021, up 8.4% from the previous year.  Chinese national oil company Sinopec is slightly more conservative in its outlook, expecting gas demand of ~ 12,006-12,184 Bcf in 2021, up 6-8% from 2020.  China’s average annual increase in natural gas demand is expected to exceed 716 Bcf in the 14th FYP and reach 15,185 Bcf in 2025. 2     Please see CIF Brent Benchmark? published 3 March 2021 by the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies for a discussion. 3    In Chart 3, we plot a rough measure of coal- vs natgas-fired generation economics for these fuels based on their average operating heat rates published by the EIA. We would note that a carbon tax would erase much of the benefit accruing to coal at this point in time. 4    Please see NOAA's Global Climate Report - March 2021. 5    Please see Low Rider - Corpus Christi's Ship Channel Dredging Will Streamline Crude Oil Exports published by RBN Energy 3 May 2021. 6    The OIES analysis cited above concludes, "… the volumes of the FOB deliverable crudes are diminishing and some change, bolstering the contract is certainly needed. The most likely compromise is to retain the existing FOB Brent with an inclusion of CIF WTI Midland assessment, netted back to an FOB equivalent North Sea value."  We agree with this assessment.  Please see CIF Brent Benchmark? published 3 March 2021 by the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, p. 8. 7     Please see Is shale activity actually profitable? Size matters, says Rystad published 7 February 2019.   Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades

Special Report

Highlights The Greens are likely to win control of Germany’s government in the September 26 federal elections. At least they will be very influential in the new coalition. Germany has achieved may of its long-term geopolitical goals within the EU. There is consensus on dovish monetary and fiscal policy and hawkish environmental policy. The biggest changes will come from the outside. The US and Germany have a more difficult relationship. While they both oppose Russian and Chinese aggression, Germany will resist American aggression. The Christian Democrats have a 65% chance of remaining in government which would limit the Greens’ controversial and ambitious tax agenda. The 35% chance of a left-wing coalition will frontload fiscal stimulus for the sake of recovery. The economy is looking up and a Green-led fiscal easing would supercharge the recovery. However, coalition politics will likely fail to address Germany’s poor demography, deteriorating productivity, and large excess savings. On a cyclical basis, overweight peripheral European bonds relative to bunds; EUR/USD; and Italian and Spanish stocks relative to German stocks. Feature Chart 1Germans Turn To A Young Woman And A Green Germany is set to become the first major country to be led by a green party. At very least the German election on September 26 will see an upset in which the ruling party under-performs and the Greens over-perform (Chart 1). At 30%, online betting markets are underrating the odds that Annalena Baerbock will become the first Green chancellor in 2022 – and the first elected chancellor to hail from a third party (Chart 2). The “German question” – the problem of how to unify Germany yet keep peace with the neighbors – lay at the heart of Europe for the past two centuries but today it appears substantially resolved: a peaceful and unified Germany stands at the center of a peaceful and mostly unified Europe. There are a range of risks on the horizon but this positive backdrop should be acknowledged. Chart 2Market Waking Up To Baerbock’s Bid For Chancellorship All of the likeliest scenarios for the German election will reinforce the current situation by perpetuating policies that aim for Euro Area solidarity. Even the green shift is already well underway, though a Green-led government would supercharge it. Nevertheless this year’s election is important because it heralds a leftward shift in Germany and will shape fiscal, energy, industrial, and trade policy for at least the coming four years. A left-wing sweep would generate equity market excitement in the short run – a positive fiscal surprise to supercharge the post-pandemic rebound – but over the long run it would bring greater policy uncertainty because it would cause a break with the past and possibly a structural economic shift (Chart 3). The Greens are in favor of substantial increases in taxation and regulation as well as big changes in industrial and energy policy. In the absence of a left-wing sweep, coalition politics will be a muddle and Germany’s existing policies will continue. Chart 3German Policy Uncertainty On The Rise Regardless of what happens within Germany, the geopolitical environment is increasingly dangerous. Germany will try to avoid getting drawn into the US’s great power struggles with Russia and China but it may not have a choice. Germany’s Geopolitics The difficulty of German unification stands at the center of modern European history. Because of the large and productive German-speaking population, unification in 1871 posed a security threat to the neighbors, culminating in the world wars. The peaceful German reunification after the Cold War created the potential for the EU to succeed and establish peace and prosperity on the continent. This arrangement has survived recent challenges. Germany’s relationship with the EU came under threat from the financial crisis, the Arab Spring and immigration influx, Brexit, and President Trump’s trade tariffs. But in the end these events cemented the reality that German and Europe are strengthening their bonds in the face of foreign pressures. Germany achieved what it had long sought – preeminence on the continent – by eschewing a military role, sticking to France economically, and avoiding conflict with Russia. Since Germany has achieved many of its long-sought strategic objectives it has not fallen victim to a nationalist backlash over the past ten years like the US and United Kingdom. However, Germany is not immune to populism or anti-establishment sentiment. The two main political blocs, the Christian Democrats and the Democratic Socialists, have suffered a loss of popular support in recent elections, forcing them into a grand coalition together. Anti-establishment feeling in Germany has moved the electorate to the left, in favor of the Greens. The Greens have risen inexorably over the past decade and have now seized the momentum only five months before an election (Chart 4). Yet the Greens in Germany are basically an establishment political party. They participate in 11 out of 16 state governments and currently hold the top position in Baden-Württemberg, Germany’s third most populous and productive state. From 1998-2005 they participated in government, getting their hands dirty with neoliberal structural reforms and overseas military deployments. Moreover the Greens cannot rule alone but will have to rule within a coalition, which will mediate their more controversial policies. Chart 4Greens Surge, Christian Democrats Falter Today Germany is in lock step with France and the EU by meeting three key conditions: full monetary accommodation (the German constitutional court’s challenges to the European Central Bank are ineffectual), full fiscal accommodation (Chancellor Angela Merkel agreed to joint debt issuance and loose deficit controls amid the COVID-19 crisis as well as robust green energy policies), and full security accommodation (German rearmament exists within the context of NATO and European security aspirations are undertaken in lock-step with the French). These conditions will not change in the 2021 election even assuming that the Greens take power at the head of a left-wing coalition. Bottom Line: Germany has virtually achieved its grand strategic aims of unifying and ruling Europe. No German government will challenge this situation and every German government will strive to solidify it. The greatest risks to this setup stem from abroad rather than at home. The Return Of The German Question? Germany’s geopolitical position can be summarized by Chart 5, which shows popular views toward different countries and institutions. The Germans look positively upon the EU and global institutions like the United Nations and less so NATO. They look unfavorably upon everything else. They take an unfavorable view toward Russia, but not dramatically so, which shows their lack of interest in conflict with Russia – they do not want to be the battleground or the ramparts of another major European war. They dislike the United States and China even more, and equally. Even if attitudes toward the US have improved since the 2020 election the net unfavorability is telling. Chart 5Germany More Favorable Toward Russia Than US? Since the global financial crisis, and especially Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2014, Germany has built up its military. This buildup is taking place under the prodding of the United States and in step with NATO allies, who are reacting to Russia’s military action to restore its sphere of influence in the former Soviet space (Chart 6). Germany’s military spending still falls short of NATO’s 2% of GDP target, however. It will not be seen as a threat to its neighbors as long as it remains integrated with France and Europe and geared toward deterring Russia. Chart 6Germany And NATO Increase Military Spending Chart 7Watch Russo-German Relations For Cracks In Europe’s Edifice Russia’s aggressiveness should continue to drive the Germans and Europeans into each other’s arms. This could change if Putin pursues diplomacy over military coercion, for then he could split Germany from eastern Europe. The possibility is clear from Russia’s and Germany’s current insistence on completing the Nord Stream 2 pipeline despite American and eastern European objections. The pipeline is set to be completed by September, right in time for the elections – in no small part because the Greens oppose it. If the US insists on halting the pipeline then a crisis will erupt with Russia that will humiliate Merkel and the Christian Democrats. But the US may refrain from doing so in the face of Russian military threats (odds are 50/50). The Russian positioning over 100,000 troops on the border with Ukraine this year – and now reportedly ordering them to return to base by May 1 – amounts to a test of Russo-German relations. Putin can easily expand the Russian footprint in Ukraine and tensions will remain elevated at least through the Russian legislative elections in September. Germans would respond to another invasion with sanctions, albeit likely watering down tougher sanctions proposed by the Americans. What would truly change the game would be a Russian conquest of all of Ukraine. This is unlikely – precisely because it would unite Germany, the Europeans, and the Americans solidly against Russia, to its economic loss as well as strategic disadvantage (Chart 7). China’s rise should also keep Germany bound up with Europe. The Germans fear China’s technological and manufacturing advancement, including Chinese involvement in digital infrastructure and networks. The Greens are critical of the way that carbon-heavy Chinese goods undercut the prices of carbon-lite German goods. Baerbock favors carbon adjustment fees, a pretty word for tariffs. However, the Germans want to maintain business with China and are not very afraid of China’s military. Hence there is a risk of a US-German split over the question of China. If Germany should consistently side with Russia and China over US objections then it risks attracting hostile attention from the US as well as from fellow Europeans, who will eventually fear that German power is becoming exorbitant by forming relations with giants outside the EU. But this is not the leading risk today. The US is courting Germany and seeking to renew the trans-Atlantic alliance. Meanwhile Germany needs US support against Russia’s military and China’s trade practices. US-German relations will improve unless the US forces Germany into an outright conflict with the autocratic powers. Bottom Line: The US and Germany have a more difficult relationship now than in the past but they share an interest in deterring Russian aggression and Chinese technological and trade ambitions. Biden’s attempt to confront these powers multilaterally is limited by Germany’s risk-aversion. Scenarios For The 2021 Election There are several realistic scenarios for the German election outcome. Our expectation that the Greens will form a government stems from a series of fundamental factors. Opinion polling has now clearly shifted in favor of our view, with the Greens gaining the momentum with only five months to go. Grouping the political parties into ideological blocs shows that the race is a dead heat. Our bet is that momentum will break in favor of the opposition Greens, which we explain below. Meanwhile the Free Democrats should perform well, stealing votes from the Christian Democrats. The right-wing Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), while not performing well, is persistent enough to poach some votes from the Christian Democrats. These are “lost” votes to the conservatives as none of the parties will join it in a coalition (Chart 8). Chart 8Germany's Median Voters Shifts To the Left The Christian Democrats bear all the signs of a stale and vulnerable government. They have been in power for 16 years and their performance in state and federal elections has eroded recently, including this year (Table 1). The public is susceptible to the powerful idea that it is time for a change. Chancellor Merkel’s approval rating is still around 60%, but in freefall, and her successful legacy is not enough to save her party, which is showing all the signs of panic: succession issues, indecision, infighting, corruption scandals. The Greens will be “tax-and-spend” lefties but the coalition matters in terms of what can actually be legislated (Table 2).1 Table 1AChristian Democrats Fall, Greens Rise, In Recent State Elections Table 1BChristian Democrats Fall, Greens Rise, In Recent State Elections Table 2Policy Platforms Of The Green Party The fact that Christian Democrats and their Bavarian sister party, the Christian Social Union, saw such a tough race for chancellor candidate is an ill omen. Moreover the party’s elites went for the safe choice of Merkel’s handpicked successor, Armin Laschet, over the more popular Markus Soeder (Chart 9), in a division that will likely haunt the party later this year. Chart 9Christian Democrats And Christian Social Union Divided Ahead Of Election Laschet has received a bounce in polls with the nomination but it will be temporary. He has not cut a major figure in any polling prior to now. Chart 10Dissatisfaction Points To Government Change He has quarreled openly with Merkel and the coalition over pandemic management. He was not her first choice of successor anyway – that was Annagret Kramp-Karrenbauer, who fell from grace due to controversy over the faintest hint of cooperation with the AfD. There is a manifest problem filling Merkel’s shoes. Even more important than coalition infighting is the fact that Germany, like the rest of the world, has suffered a historic shock to its economy and society. The pandemic and recession were then aggravated by a botched vaccine rollout. General dissatisfaction is high, another negative sign for the incumbent party (Chart 10). Of course, the election is still five months away. The vaccine will make its way around, the economy will reopen, and consumers will look up – see below for the very positive macro upturn that Germany should expect between now and the election. Voters have largely favored strict pandemic measures and Merkel will have long coattails. This Christian Democrats and Christian Social Union have ruled modern Germany for all but 15 years and have not fallen beneath 33% of the popular vote since reunification. The Greens have frequently aroused more energy in opinion polling than at the voting booth. With these points in mind, we offer the following election scenarios with our subjective probabilities: Green-Red-Red Coalition – Greens rule without Christian Democrats – 35% odds. Green-Black Coalition – Greens rule with Christian Democrats – 30% odds. Black-Green Coalition – Christian Democrats rule with Greens – 25% odds. Grand Coalition (Status Quo) – Christian Democrats rule without Greens – 10% odds. Our subjective probabilities are based on the opinion polls and online betting cited above but adjusted for the Greens’ momentum, the Christian Democrats’ internal divisions, the “time for change” factor, and the presence of a historic exogenous economic and social shock. Geopolitical surprises could occur before the election but they would most likely reinforce the Greens, since they have taken a hawkish line against Russia and China. Bottom Line: The Greens are likely to lead the next German government but at very least they will have a powerful influence. Policy Impacts Of Election Scenarios The makeup of the ruling coalition will determine the parameters of new policy. Fiscal policy will change based on the election outcome – both spending and taxes. The Greens will be “tax-and-spend” lefties but the coalition matters in terms of what can actually be legislated.2 The Greens’ idea is to “steer” the rebuilding process through environmental policy. But if the left lacks a strong majority then the Greens’ more controversial and punitive measures will not get through. Transformative policies will weigh heavily on the lower classes (Chart 11). Chart 11Ambitious Climate Policy Will Face Resistance The policy dispositions of the various chancellor candidates help to illustrate Germany’s high degree of policy consensus. Table 3 looks at the candidates based on whether they are “hawkish” (active or offensive) or “dovish” (passive or defensive) on a given policy area. What stands out is the agreement among the different candidates despite party differences. Nobody is a fiscal or monetary hawk. Only Baerbock can be classified as a hawk on trade.3 Nobody is a hawk on immigration. Nearly everyone is a hawk on fighting climate change. And attitudes are turning more skeptical of Russia and China, though not outright hawkish. Table 3Policy Consensus Among German Chancellor Candidates Germany will not abandon its green initiatives even if the Greens underperform. The current grand coalition pursued a climate package due to popular pressure even with the Greens in opposition. Germans are considerably more pro-environment even than other Europeans (Chart 12). The green shift is also happening across the world. The US is now joining the green race while China is doubling down for its own reasons. See the Appendix for current green targets and measures, which have been updated in the wake of a slew of announcements before Biden’s Earth Day climate summit on April 22-23. Chart 12Germans Care Even More About Environment Than Other Europeans Any coalition will raise spending more than taxes since it will be focused on post-COVID economic recovery. There has been a long prelude to Germany’s proactive fiscal shift – it has staying power and is not to be dismissed. A Christian Democratic coalition would try to restore fiscal discipline sooner than otherwise but there is only a 5% chance that it will have the power to do so according to the scenarios given above. The rest of Europe will be motivated to spend aggressively while EU fiscal caps are on hold in 2022, especially if the German government is taking a more dovish turn. Even more than the US and UK, Germany is turning away from the neoliberal Washington Consensus. But Germans are not experiencing any kind of US-style surge of polarization and populism. At least not yet. It may be a risk over the long run, depending on the fate of the Christian Democrats, the AfD, and various internal and external developments. Bottom Line: Germany has a national consensus that consists of dovish monetary, fiscal, trade, and immigration policies and hawkish (pro-green) environmental policy. Germany is turning less dovish on geopolitical conflicts with Russia and China. Given that a coalition government is likely, this consensus is likely to determine actual policy in the wake of this year’s election. A few things are clear regardless of the ruling coalition. First, Germany is seeking domestic demand as a new source of growth, to rebalance its economy and deepen EU integration. Second, Germany is accelerating its green energy drive. Third, Germany cannot accept being in the middle of a new cold war with Russia. Fourth, Germany has an ambivalent policy on China. Germany’s Macro Outlook Even before considering the broader fiscal picture, the outlook for German economic activity over the course of the coming 12 to 24 months was already positive. Our base case scenario for the September election, which foresees a coalition government led by the Green Party, only confirms this optimistic view. However, Germany is still facing significant long-term challenges, and, so far, there has not been a political consensus to address these structural headwinds adequately. The Greens offer some solutions but not all of their proposals are constructive and much will depend on their parliamentary strength. Peering Into The Near-Term… Germany’s economy is set to benefit from the continued recovery of the global business cycle, which is a view at the core of BCA Research’s current outlook.4 Germany remains a trading and manufacturing powerhouse, and thus, it will reap a significant dividend from the continued global manufacturing upswing. Manufacturing and trade amount to 20% and 88% of Germany’s GDP, the highest percentage of any major economy. Alternatively, according to the OECD, foreign demand for German goods accounts for nearly 30% of domestic value added, a share even greater than that for a smaller economy like Korea (Chart 13). Moreover, road vehicles, machinery and other transport equipment, as well as chemicals and related products, account for 53% of Germany’s exports. These products are all particularly sensitive to the global business cycle. They will therefore enhance the performance of the German economy over the next two years. Trade with the rest of Europe constitutes another boost to Germany’s economy going forward. Shipments to the euro area and the rest of the EU account for 34% and 23% of Germany’s exports, or 57% overall. Right now, the lagging economy of Europe is a handicap for Germany; however, Europe has more pent-up demand than the US, and the consumption of durable goods will surge once the vaccination campaign progresses further (Chart 14). This will create a significant boon for Germany, since we expect European consumption to pick up meaningfully over the coming 12 to 18 months.5 Chart 13Germany Depends On Global Trade Chart 14Europe Has More Pent-Up Demand Than The US Chart 15Vaccination Progress Domestic forces also point toward a strong Germany economy, not just foreign factors. The pace of vaccination is rapidly accelerating in Germany (Chart 15). The recent announcement of 50 million additional doses purchases for the quarter and up to 1.8 billion more doses over the next two years by the EU points to further improvements. A more broad-based vaccination effort will catalyze underlying tailwinds to consumption. German household income will also progress significantly. The Kurzarbeit program was instrumental in containing the unemployment rate during the crisis, which only peaked at 6.4% from 5% in early 2020. However, the program could not prevent a sharp decline in total hours worked of 7%, since by definition, it forced six million employees to work reduced hours (Chart 16). One of the great benefits of the program is that it prevents a rupture of the link between workers and employers. Thus, the economy suffers less frictional unemployment as activity recovers and household income does not suffer long lasting damage. Meanwhile, the German government is likely to extend the support for households and businesses as a result of the delayed use of the debt-brake. The Greens propose revising the debt brake rather than restoring it in 2022 like the conservatives pledge to do. Chart 16Kurtzarbeit Saved The Day The balance-sheet strength of German households means that they will have the wherewithal to spend these growing incomes. Residential real estate prices are rising at an 8% annual pace, which is pushing the asset-to-disposable income ratio to record highs. Meanwhile, the debt-to-assets ratio, and the level of interest rates are also very low, which means that the burden of serving existing liabilities is minimal (Chart 17). In this context, durable goods spending will accelerate, which will lift overall cyclical spending, even if German households do not spend much of the EUR120 billion in excess savings built up over the past year. As Chart 18 shows, while US durable goods spending has already overtaken its pre-COVID highs, Germany’s continues to linger near its long-term trend. Thus, as the economy re-opens this summer, and income and employment increase, the concurrent surge in consumer confidence will allow for a recovery in cyclical spending. Chart 17Strong Household Balance Sheets Chart 18Germany Too Has More Pent-up Demand Than The US Chart 19Positive Message From Many Indicators Various economic indicators are already pointing toward the coming German economic boom.Manufacturing orders are strong, and economic sentiment confidence is rising across most sectors. Meanwhile, consumer optimism is forming a trough, and new car registrations are climbing rapidly. Most positively, the stocks of finished goods have collapsed, which suggests that production will be ramped up to fulfill future demand (Chart 19). Bottom Line: The German economy is set to accelerate in the second half of the year and into 2022. As usual, Germany will enjoy a healthy dividend from robust global growth, but the expanding vaccination program, as well durable employee-employer relations, strong household balance sheets, and significant pent-up demand for durable goods will also fuel the domestic economy. Our base case scenario that fiscal policy will remain accommodative in the wake of a political shift to the left in Berlin in September will only supercharge this inevitable recovery. … And The Long-Term In contrast to the bright near-term perspective, the long-term outlook for the German economy remains poor. The policies of any new ruling coalition are unlikely to address the problems of Germany’s poor demography, deteriorating productivity, and large excess savings. There is potential for a productivity boost in the context of a global green energy and high-tech race but for now that remains a matter of speculation. The most obvious issue facing Germany is its ageing population, counterbalanced by its fertility rate of only 1.6. Over the course of the next three decades, Germany’s dependency ratio will surge to 80%, driven by an increase in the elderly dependency ratio of 20% (Chart 20). The working age population is set to decline by 18% by 2050, which will curtail potential GDP growth. The outlook for German productivity growth is also poor. Germany’s productivity growth has been in a long-term decline, falling from 5% in 1975 to less than 1% in 2019. Contrary to commonly-held ideas, from 1999 to 2007, German labor productivity growth has only matched that of France or Spain; since 2008, it has lagged behind these two nations, although it has bested Italy. One crucial reason for Germany’s uninspiring productivity performance is a lack of investment. Some of this reflects the country’s austere fiscal policy. For example, in 2019, Germany’s public investment stood at 2.4% of GDP, which compares poorly to the OECD’s average of 3.8%, or even to that of the US, where public investment stood at 3.6% of GDP. This poor statistic does not even account for the depreciation of the German public capital stock. Since the introduction of the euro, net public investment has averaged 0.03% of GDP. The biggest problem remains at the municipal level. From 2012 to 2019, federal and state level net investment averaged 0.2% of GDP, while municipal net investment subtracted 0.2% of GDP on average. Hopefully, the new government will be able to address this deficiency of the German economy. The Greens are most proactive but they will face obstacles. The bigger problem for German productivity is corporate capex. Corporate investments have been low in this country. Since the introduction of the euro, the contribution of capital intensity to productivity in Germany has equaled that of Italy and has underperformed France and Spain. As a result, the age of the German capital stock is at a record high and stands well above the US or Eurozone average (Chart 21). Chart 20Germany Has Poor Demographics Chart 21Germany's Capital Stock Is Ageing The make-up of Germany’s capex aggravates the productivity-handicap. According to a Bundesbank study, the contribution to labor productivity from information and communication technology (ICT) capital spending has averaged 0.05 percentage points annually from 2008 to 2012. On this metric, Germany lagged behind France and the US, but still bested Italy. From 2013 to 2017, the contribution of ICT investment to productivity fell to 0.02 percentage points, still below France and the US, but in line with Italy. Looking at the absolute level of ICT or knowledge-based capital (KBC) investment further highlights Germany’s challenge. In 2016, total investment in ICT equipment, software and database, R&D and intellectual property products, and other KBC assets (which include organizational capital and training) represented less than 8% of GDP. In France, the US, or Sweden, these outlays accounted for 11%, 12%, and 13% of GDP, respectively (Chart 22, top panel). This lack of investment directly hurts Germany’s capacity to innovate. The bottom panel of Chart 22 shows that, for the eight most important categories of ICT patents (accounting for 80% of total ICT patents), Germany remarkably lags behind the US, Japan, Korea, or China. Chart 22Germany Lags In ICT investment A major source of Germany’s handicap in ICT and KBC investment comes from small businesses, which have been particularly reluctant to deploy capital. A study by the OECD shows that, between 2010 and 2019, the gap of ICT tools and activities adoption between Germany’s small and large companies deteriorated relative to the OECD average (Chart 23). The lack of venture capital investing probably exacerbates these problems. In 2019, venture capital investing accounted for 0.06% of Germany’s GDP. This is below the level of venture investing in France or the UK (0.08% and 0.1% of GDP, respectively), let alone South Korea, Canada, Israel, or the US (0.16%, 0.2%, 0.4% and 0.65%, respectively). The Greens claim they will create new venture capital funds but their capability in this domain is questionable. Chart 23The Lagging ICT Capabilities Of Small German Businesses Since Germany’s productivity growth is likely to remain sub-par compared to rest of the OECD and to lag behind even that of France or the UK, the only way for Germany to protect its competitiveness will be to control costs. This means that Germany cannot allow its recent loss of competitiveness to continue much further (Chart 24). Thus, low productivity growth will limit Germany’s real wages. Chart 24Germany's Competitiveness Is Declining This wage constraint will negatively impact consumption. Beyond a pop over the coming 12 to 24 months, German consumption is likely to remain depressed, as it was in the first decade and a half of the century, following the Hartz IV labor market reforms that also hurt real wages. The Greens for their part aim to boost welfare payments, raise the minimum wage, and reduce enforcement of Hartz IV. Bottom Line: German excess savings will remain wide on a structural basis. Without a meaningful pick-up in capex, German nonfinancial businesses will remain net lenders. Meanwhile, households that were worried about their financial future in a world of low real-wage growth will also continue to save a significant share of their income. Consequently, the excess savings Germany developed since the turn of the millennia are here to stay (Chart 25). In other words, Germany will continue to sport a large current account surplus and exert a deflationary influence on Europe and the rest of the world. The policy prescribed by the various parties contesting the September election will not necessarily result in new laws that will reverse the issues of low capex and low ICT investment. The Greens will worsen the over-regulation of the economy. Barring a policy revolution that succeeds in all its aims (a tall order), we can expect more of the same for Germany – that is, a slowly declining economy. Chart 25Too Much Savings, Not Enough Investments Chart 26Germany Scores Well On Renewable Power That being said, some bright spots exist. Germany is becoming a leader in renewable energy, and it can capitalize on the broadening of this trend to enlarge its export market (Chart 26). Investment Implications Bond Markets The economic outlook for Germany and the euro area at large is consistent with the underweighting of German bunds within European fixed-income portfolios. Bunds rank among the most expensive bond markets in the world, which will make them extremely vulnerable to positive economic surprise in Europe later this year, especially if Germany’s fiscal policy loosens up further in the wake of the September election (Chart 27). Moreover, easier German fiscal policy should help European peripheral bonds, especially the inexpensive Italian BTPs that the ECB currently buys aggressively. Thus, we continue to overweight BTPs, and add Greek and Portuguese bonds to the list. Chart 27German Bunds Are Expensive Chart 28German Yields Already Embed Plenty Pessimism About Europe Relative to US Treasurys, the outlook for Bunds is more complex. On the one hand, the ECB will not tighten policy as much as the Fed later this cycle; moreover, European inflation is likely to remain below US levels this year, as well as through the business cycle. On the other hand, Bunds already embed a significantly lower real terminal rate proxy and term premium than Treasury Notes (Chart 28). Netting it all out, BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy service believes Bunds should outperform Treasurys this year, because they have a lower beta, which is a valuable feature in a rising yield environment.6 We will closely monitor risks around this view, because it is likely that the European economic recovery will be the catalyst for the next up leg in global yields, in which case German bunds could temporarily underperform. On a structural basis, as long as Germany’s productivity issues are not addressed by Berlin, German Bunds are likely to remain an anchor for global yields. Germany will remain awash in excess savings, which will act as a deflationary anchor, while also limiting the long-term upside for European real rates. Excess savings results in a large current account surplus; thus, Germany will continue to export its savings abroad and act as a containing factor for global yields. The Euro The medium-term outlook points to significant euro upside. Our expectation of a European and German positive growth surprise over the coming 12 months is consistent with an outperformance of the euro. The fact that investors have been moving funds out of the Eurozone and into the US at an almost constant rate for the past 10 years only lends credence to this argument (Chart 29). Our view on Germany’s fiscal policy contributes to the euro’s luster. Greater German budget deficits help European economic activity and curtail risk premia across the Eurozone. This process is doubly positive for the euro. First, lower risk premia in the periphery invite inflows into the euro area, especially since Greek, Portuguese, Italian, or Spanish yields offer better value than alternatives. Second, stronger growth and lower risk premia relieve pressure on the ECB as the sole reflator for the Eurozone. At the margin, this process should boost the extremely depressed terminal rate proxy for Europe and help EUR/USD. Robust global economic activity adds to the euro’s appeal, beyond the positive domestic forces at play in Europe. The dollar is a countercyclical currency; thus, global business cycle upswings coincide with a weak USD, which increases EUR/USD’s appeal. Nonetheless, if the boost to global activity emanates from the US, then the dollar can strengthen. This phenomenon was at play in the first quarter of 2021. However, the global growth leadership is set to move away from the US over the next 12 months, which implies that the normal inverse relationship between the dollar and global growth will reassert itself to the euro’s benefit. The European balance of payments dynamics will consolidate the attraction of the euro. Germany’s and the Eurozone’s current account surplus will remain wide, especially in comparison to the expanding twin deficit plaguing the US. Beyond the next 12 to 24 months, the lack of structural vigor of Germany’s and Europe’s economy is likely to shift the euro into a safe-haven currency, like the yen and the Swiss franc. A strong balance of payments and low interest rates (all symptoms of excess savings) are the defining features of funding currencies, and will be permanent attributes of the euro area if reforms do not address its productivity malaise. The Eurozone’s net international position is already rising and its low inflation will put a structural upward bias to the Euro’s purchasing power parity estimates (Chart 30). Those developments have all been evident in Japan and Switzerland, and will likely extinguish the euro’s pro-cyclicality as time passes. Chart 29Investors Already Underweight European Assets Chart 30Upward Bias In The Euro's Fair Value Chart 31Germany Has Not Outperformed The Rest Of The Eurozone German Equities In absolute terms, the DAX and German equities still possess ample upside over the next 12 to 24 months. BCA Research is assuming a positive stance on equities, and a high beta market like Germany stands to benefit.7 Moreover, the elevated sensitivity to global economic activity of German equities accentuate their appeal. BCA Research likes European stocks, and German ones are no exception.8 The more complex question is how to position German equities within a European stock portfolio. After massively outperforming from 2003 to 2012, German equities have moved in line with the rest of the Eurozone ever since (Chart 31). Moreover, German equities now trade at a discount on all the major valuation metrics relative to the rest of the Eurozone (Chart 31, bottom panel). The global macro forces that dictate the outlook for German equities relative to the rest of the Eurozone are currently sending conflicting messages. On the one hand, German equities normally outperform when commodity prices rally or when the euro appreciates (Chart 32). On the other hand, however, German equities also underperform when global yields rise, or following periods when Chinese excess reserves fall, such as what we are witnessing today. With this lack of clarity from global forces, the answer to Germany’s relative performance question lies within European economic dynamics. Germany is losing competitiveness relative to the rest of the Eurozone (Chart 24 page 22) which suggests that German stocks will benefit less than their peers from a stronger euro in comparison to their performance in the last decade. Moreover, German equities outperform when the German manufacturing PMI increases relative to that of the broad euro area. The gap between the German and euro area manufacturing PMI stands near record highs and is likely to narrow as the rest of the Eurozone catches up. This should have a bearing on the performance of German stocks (Chart 33). Chart 32Mixed Global Backdrop For Germany's Relative Performance Chart 33A European Economic Catch-Up Would Hurt German Equities Finally, sectoral dynamics may prove to be the ultimate arbiter. Table 4 highlights the limited difference in sectoral weightings between Germany and the rest of the Eurozone, which helps explain the stability in the relative performance over the past nine years. However, the variance is greater between Germany and specific European nations. In this approach, BCA’s negative stance on growth stocks correlates with an overweight of Germany relative to the Netherlands. Moreover, our positive outlook on financials and bond yields suggests that Germany should underperform Italian and Spanish stocks. Table 4Sectoral Breakdown Across Europe Major Bourses   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Mathieu Savary, Chief European Investment Strategist Mathieu@bcaresearch.com Appendix: Global Climate Policy Commitments Footnotes 1 See Matthew Karnitschnig, "German Conservatives Mired In ‘The Swamp,’" Politico, March 24, 2021, politico.eu. 2 The Greens are interested in a range of taxes, including a carbon tax, a digital services tax, and a financial transactions tax. They are also interested in industrial quotas requiring steel and car makers to sell a certain proportion of carbon-neutral steel and electric vehicles. See an excellent interview with Ms. Baerbock in Ileana Grabitz and Katharina Schuler, "I don’t have to convert the SUV driver in Prenzlauer Berg," Zeit Online, January 2, 2020, zeit.de. 3 See her comments to Zeit Online. 4 Please see BCA Research Global Investment Strategy Strategy Outlook "Second Quarter 2021 Strategy Outlook: Inflation Cometh?", dated March 26, 2021, available at gis.bcareseach.com. 5 Please see BCA Research European Investment Strategy Special Report "A Temporary Decoupling", dated April 5, 2021, available at eis.bcareseach.com. 6 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Strategy Report "Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger", dated March 16, 2021, available at gfis.bcareseach.com. 7 Please see BCA Research Global Income Strategy Strategy Outlook "Second Quarter 2021 Strategy Outlook: Inflation Cometh?", dated March 26, 2021, available at gis.bcareseach.com. 8 Please see BCA Research European Income Strategy Strategy Report "Time And Attraction", dated April 12, 2021, available at eis.bcareseach.com.

Highlights Continued upgrades to global economic growth – most recently by the IMF this week –will support higher natgas prices.  In our estimation, gas for delivery at Henry Hub, LA, in the coming withdrawal season (November – March) is undervalued at current levels at ~ $2.90/MMBtu. Inventory demand will remain strong during the current April-October injection season, following the blast of colder-than-normal weather in 1Q21 that pulled inventories lower in the US, Europe and Northeast Asia. The odds the US will succeed in halting completion of the final leg of the Russian Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline into Germany are higher than the consensus expectation.  Our odds the pipeline will not be completed this year stand at 50%, which translates into higher upside risk for natural gas prices.  We are getting long 1Q22 calls on CME/NYMEX Henry Hub-delivered natgas futures struck at $3.50/MMBtu vs. short 1Q22 $3.75/MMBtu calls at tonight's close.  The probability of Nord Stream 2 cancellation is underpriced, which means European TTF and Asian JKM prices will have to move higher to attract LNG cargoes next winter from the US, if the pipeline is cancelled (Chart of the Week). Feature As major forecasting agencies continue to upgrade global growth prospects, expectations for industrial-commodity demand – energy, bulks, and base metals – also are moving higher. This week, the IMF raised its growth expectations for this year and next to 6% and 4.4%, respectively, nearly a full percentage-point increase versus its January forecast update for 2021.1 This upgrade follows a similar move by the OECD last month.2 In the US, the EIA is expecting industrial demand for natural gas to rise 1.35 Bcf/d this year to 23.9 Bcf/d; versus 2019 levels, industrial demand will be 0.84 Bcf/d higher in 2021. For 2022, industrial demand is expected to be 24.2 Bcf/d. US industrial demand likely will recover faster than the EU's, given the expectation of a stronger recovery on the back of massive fiscal and monetary stimulus. Overall natgas demand in the US likely will move lower this year, given higher natgas prices expected this year and next will incentivize electricity generators to switch to coal at the margin, according to the EIA. Total demand is expected to be 82.9 Bcf/d in the US this year vs. 83.3 Bcf/d last year, owing to lower generator demand. Pipeline-quality gas output in the US – known as dry gas, since its liquids have been removed for other uses – is expected to average 91.4 Bcf/d this year, essentially unchanged. Lower consumption by the generators and flat production will allow US gas inventories to return to their five-year average levels of 3.7 Tcf by the end of October, in the EIA's estimation (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekUS-Russia Geopolitical Risk Underpriced Chart 2US Natgas Inventories Return To Five-Year Average US Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) exports are likely to expand, as Asian and European demand grows (Chart 3). Prior to the boost in US LNG demand from colder weather, exports set monthly records of 9.4 Bcf/d and 9.8 Bcf/d in November and December of last year, respectively, with Asia accounting for the largest share of exports (Chart 4). This also marked the first time LNG exports exceeded US pipeline exports to Mexico and Canada. The EIA is forecasting US LNG exports will be 8.5 bcf/d and 9.2 Bcf/d this year and next, versus pipeline exports of 8.8 Bcf/d and 8.9 Bcf/d in 2021 and 2022, respectively. Chart 3US LNG Exports Continue Growing Chart 4US LNG Exports Set Records In November And December 2020 US LNG exports – and export potential given the size of the resource base at just over 500 Tcf – now are of a sufficient magnitude to be a formidable force in global markets, particularly in Europe. This puts it in direct conflict with Russia, which has targeted Europe as a key market for its pipeline natural gas exports. US-Russia Standoff Looming Over Nord Stream 2 Given the size and distribution of global oil and gas production and consumption, it comes as no surprise national interests can, at times, become as important to pricing these commodities as supply-demand fundamentals. This is particularly true in oil, and increasingly is becoming the case in natural gas. That the same dramatis personae – the US and Russia – should feature in geopolitical contests in oil and gas markets also should not come as a surprise. In an attempt to circumvent transporting its natural gas through Ukraine, Russia is building a 1,230 km underwater pipeline from Narva Bay in the Kingisepp district of the Leningrad region of Russia to Lubmin, near Greifswald, in Germany (Map 1). The Biden administration, like the Trump administration and US Congress, is officially attempting to halt the final leg of the pipeline from being built, although Biden has not yet put America’s full weight into stopping it. Biden claims it will be up to the Europeans to decide what to do. At the same time, any major Russian or Russian-backed military operation in Ukraine could trigger an American action to halt the pipeline in retaliation. Map 1Nord Stream 2 Route In our estimation, there is a 50% chance that the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline will not be completed this year or go into operation as planned given substantial geopolitical risks. The $11 billion pipeline would connect Russia directly to Germany with a capacity of about 55 billion cubic meters, which, combined with the existing Nord Stream One pipeline, would equal 110 BCM in offshore capacity, or 55% of Russia's natural gas exports to Europe in 2019. The pipeline’s construction is 94% complete, with the Russian ship Akademik Cherskiy entering Danish waters in late March to begin laying pipes to finish the final 138-kilometer stretch, according to Reuters. The pipeline could be finished in early August at the pace of 1 kilometer per day.3 The Russian and German governments are speeding up the project to finish it before US-Russia tensions, or the German elections in September, interrupt the construction process again. It is not too late for the US to try to halt the pipeline through sanctions. But for the Americans to succeed, the Biden administration would have to make an aggressive effort. Notably the Biden administration took office with a desire to sharpen US policy toward Russia.4 While Biden seeks Russian engagement on arms reduction treaties and the Iranian nuclear negotiations, he mainly aims to counter Russia, expand sanctions, provide weapons to Ukraine, and promote democracy in Russia’s sphere of influence. The result will almost inevitably be a new US-Russia confrontation, which is already taking shape over Russia’s buildup of troops on the border with Ukraine, where US and Russian meddling could cause civil war to reignite (Map 2). Map 2Russia’s Military Tensions With The West Escalate In Wake Of Biden’s Election And Ukraine’s Renewed Bid To Join NATO Tensions in Ukraine are directly tied to US military cooperation with Ukraine and any possibility that Ukraine will join the NATO military alliance, a red line for Putin. Nord Stream 2 is Russia’s way of bypassing Ukraine but a new US-Russia conflict, especially a Russian attack on Ukraine, would halt the pipeline. The pipeline’s completion would improve Russo-German strategic relations, undercut US liquefied natural gas exports to Germany and the EU, and reduce the US’s and eastern Europe’s leverage over Russia (and Germany). Biden says his administration is planning to impose new sanctions on firms that oversee, construct, or insure the pipeline, and such sanctions are required under American law.5 Yet Biden also wants a strong alliance with Germany, which favors the pipeline and does not want to escalate the conflict with Russia. The American laws against Nord Stream have big loopholes and give the president discretion regarding the use of sanctions, which means Biden would have to make a deliberate decision to override Germany and impose maximum sanctions if he truly wanted to halt construction.6 This would most likely occur if Russia committed a major new act of aggression in Ukraine or against other European democracies. The German policy, under the current ruling coalition led by Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union, is to finish the pipeline despite Russia’s conflicts with the West and political repression at home. Russia provides more than a third of Germany’s natural gas imports and this pipeline would bypass eastern Europe’s pipeline network and thus secure Germany’s (and Austria’s and the EU’s) natural gas supply whenever Russia cuts off the flow to Ukraine (through which roughly 40% of Russian natural gas still must pass to reach Europe). Germany's Election And Natgas Politics Germany wants to use natural gas as a bridge while it phases out nuclear energy and coal. Natural gas has grown 2.2 percentage points as a share of Germany’s total energy mix since the Fukushima disaster of 2011, and renewable energy has grown 7.7ppt, while coal has fallen 7.3ppt and nuclear has fallen 2.5ppt (Chart 5). The German federal election on September 26 complicates matters because Merkel and the Christian Democrats are likely to underperform their opinion polls and could even fall from power. They do not want to suffer a major foreign policy humiliation at the hands of the Americans or a strategic crisis with Russia right before the election. They will insist that Biden leave the pipeline alone and will offer other forms of cooperation against Russia in compensation. Therefore, the current German government could push through the pipeline and complete the project even in the face of US objections. But this outcome is not guaranteed. The German Greens are likely to gain influence in the Bundestag after the elections and could even lead the German government for the first time – and they are opposed to a new fossil fuel pipeline that increases Russia’s influence. Chart 5Germany Sees Nord Stream 2 Gas As Bridge To Low-Carbon Economy Hence there is a fair chance that the pipeline does not become operational: either Americans halt it out of strategic interest, or the German Greens halt it out of environmental and strategic interest, or both. True, there is a roughly equal chance that Merkel’s policy status quo survives in Germany, which would result in an operational pipeline. The best case for Germany might be that the current government completes the pipeline physically but the next government has optionality on whether to make it operational. But 50/50 odds of cancellation is a much higher risk than the consensus holds. The Russian policy is to finish Nord Stream 2 while also making an aggressive military stance against the West’s and NATO’s influence in Ukraine. This would expand Russian commodity and energy exports and undercut Ukraine’s natgas transit income. It would also increase Russian leverage over Germany – and it would divide Germany from the eastern Europeans and Americans. A preemptive American intervention would elicit Russian retaliation. The Russians could respond in the strategic sphere or the economic sphere. Economically they could react by cutting off natural gas to Europe, but that would undermine their diplomatic goals, so they would more likely respond by increasing production of natural gas or crude oil to steal American market share. In any scenario Russian retaliation would likely cause global price volatility in one or more energy markets, in addition to whatever volatility is induced by the cancellation of Nord Stream 2 itself. US-Russia tensions are likely to escalate but only Ukraine and Nord Stream 2, or the separate Iranian negotiations, have a direct impact on global energy supply. If Germany goes forward with the pipeline, then Russia would need to be countered by other means. The Americans, not the Germans, would provide these “other means,” such as military support to ensure the integrity of Ukraine and other nations’ borders. The Russians may gain a victory for their energy export strategy but they will never compromise on Ukraine and they will still need to focus on the broader global shift to renewable energy, which threatens their economic model and hence ultimately their regime stability. So, the risk of a market-moving US-Russia conflict can be delayed but probably not prevented (Chart 6). Chart 6US-Russia Conflit Likely Bottom Line: The Nord Stream 2 pipeline is not guaranteed to be completed this year as planned. The US is more likely to force a halt to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline than the consensus holds, especially if Russia attacks Ukraine. If the US fails to do so, then the German election will become the next signpost for whether the pipeline will become operational. If the Americans halt the pipeline, then US-Russian conflict either already erupted or will occur sooner rather than later and will likely impact global oil or natural gas prices. Investment Implications Our subjective assessment of 50% odds the US will succeed in halting completion of the final leg of Nord Stream 2 are higher than the consensus expectation. This translates directly into higher upside risk for natural gas prices in the US and Europe later this year and next. Given our view, we are getting long 1Q22 calls on CME/NYMEX Henry Hub-delivered natgas futures struck at $3.50/MMBtu vs. short 1Q22 $3.75/MMBtu calls at tonight's close. The probability of Nord Stream 2 cancellation is underpriced, which means the odds of higher prices in the LNG market are underpriced (Chart 7). The immediate implication of our view is European TTF prices will have to move higher to attract LNG cargoes next winter from the US, if the Nord Stream 2 pipeline's final leg is cancelled. This also would tighten the Asian markets, causing the JKM to move higher as well (Chart 8). Any indication of colder-than-normal weather in the US, Europe or Asian markets would mean a sharper move higher. Chart 7Natgas Tails Are Too Narrow For Next Winter Chart 8Nord Stream 2 Cancellation Would Boost JKM Prices   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish The US and Iran began indirect talks earlier this week in Vienna aimed at restoring the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), otherwise known as the "Iran nuclear deal." All of the other parties of the deal – Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia – are in favor of restoring the deal. BCA Research believes this is most likely to occur prior to the inauguration of a new president who is expected to be a hardliner willing to escalate Iran’s demands. US President Biden can unilaterally ease sanctions and bring the US into compliance with the deal, and Iran could then reciprocate. If a deal is not reached by August it could take years to resolve US-Iran tensions. China could offer to cooperate on sanctions and help to broker negotiations following the signing of its 25-year trade deal with Iran last week. Russia likely would demand the US not pressure its allies to cancel the Nord Stream 2 deal, in return for its assistance in brokering a deal. Base Metals: Bullish Iron ore prices continue to be supported by record steel prices in China, trading at more than $173/MT earlier this week. Even though steel production reportedly is falling in the top steel-producer in China, Tangshan, as a result of anti-pollution measures, for iron ore remains stout. As we have previously noted, we use steel prices as a leading indicator for copper prices. We remain long Dec21 copper and will be looking for a sell-off to get long Sep21 copper vs. short Sep21 copper if the market trades below $4/lb on the CME/COMEX futures market (Chart 9). Precious Metals: Bullish Gold held support ~ $1,680/oz at the end of March, following an earlier test in the month. We remain long the yellow metal, despite coming close to being stopped out last week (Chart 10). The earlier sell-off appeared to be caused by a need to raise liquidity to us. We continue to expect the Fed to hold firm to its stated intent to wait for actual inflation to become manifest before raising rates, and, therefore, continue to expect real rates to weaken. This will be supportive of gold and commodities generally (Chart 10). Ags/Softs: Neutral Corn continues to be well supported above $5.50/bu, following last week's USDA report showing farmers intend to increase acreage planted to just over 91mm acres, which is less than 1% above last year's level. Chart 9 Chart 10       Footnotes 1     Please see the Fund's April 2021 forecast Managing Divergent Recoveries. 2     We noted last week these higher growth expectations generally are bullish for industrial commodities – energy, metals, and bulks.  Please see Fundamentals Support Oil, Bulks, And Metals, which we published 1 April 2021.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3    For the rate of construction see Margarita Assenova, “Clouds Darkening Over Nord Stream Two Pipeline,” Eurasia Daily Monitor 18: 17 (February 1, 2021), Jamestown Foundation, jamestown.org. For the current status, see Robin Emmott, “At NATO, Blinken warns Germany over Nord Stream 2 pipeline,” Reuters, March 23, 2021, reuters.com. 4    The Democratic Party blames Russia for what it sees as a campaign to undermine the democratic West and recreate the Soviet sphere of influence. See for example the 2008 invasion of Georgia, the failure of the Obama administration’s 2009-11 diplomatic “reset,” the Edward Snowden affair, the seizure of Crimea and civil war in Ukraine, the survival of Syria’s dictator, and Russian interference in US elections in 2016 and 2020. 5    The Countering Russian Influence in Europe and Eurasia Act of 2017, and the Protecting Europe’s Energy Security Act of 2019/2020, contain provisions requiring sanctions on firms that have contributed in any way a minimum of $1 million to the project, or provide pipe-laying services or insurance. There are exceptions for services provided by the governments of the EU member states, Norway, Switzerland, or the UK. The president has discretion over the implementation of sanctions as usual. 6    The German state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern is creating a shell foundation to enable the completion of the pipeline. It can shield companies from American sanctions aimed at private companies, not sovereigns.    Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Summary of Closed Trades

Special Report

Highlights We expect limited upside to gas prices from current levels as the comeback of US Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) exports will add to an already oversupplied market. In the short term, prices will remain below full-cycle costs. This will limit investment in LNG and the infrastructure required to get it to market in future. European storage will peak below maximum capacity. Gas forwards are pricing a rapid drawdown over the winter. Whether this occurs depends critically on winter demand in the northern hemisphere and a continued recovery in world economic activity. In the US, declining production in the prolific natural-gas shales and rising LNG exports will help balance its domestic gas markets: Rig counts in the Appalachian basin are at multiyear lows, which is weighing on output. Collapsing oil production in major shale-oil basins is dramatically reducing associated gas output, which represents more than 16% of total gas production. Still, a second wave of COVID-19 that results in another round of widespread lockdowns could send natgas prices back below $2/MMBtu as storage fills. Over the next few months, the balance of risk in natgas markets – especially in the US – remains to the downside, though highly uncertain. We are staying on the sidelines for now.  Over the medium term, global demand for LNG will catch up with supply by 2024, supported by additional coal-to-gas switching and slower supply growth. Feature The mounting probability inventories will fill up to maximum capacity before this coming winter’s heating season has pushed major European and Asian benchmarks below US LNG’s variable costs. Global natural gas markets have been severely hit by the COVID-19 pandemic. Natgas prices in Asia, Europe, and the US were amongst the worst performing commodities during the crisis (Chart 1). This reflects weak fundamentals – i.e. a significant global supply surplus – which gas markets faced even before the exogenous shock. The mounting probability inventories will fill up to maximum capacity before this coming winter’s heating season has pushed major European and Asian benchmarks below US LNG’s variable costs. This development renders shipments of US gas overseas uneconomical. The cancellation of US cargoes is acting as the primary balancing factor and will allow inventories to stay below full capacity – assuming global economic activity continues to accelerate in 2H20. Henry Hub prices surged by 34% since the beginning of the month on the back of higher gas demand – from warmer-than-normal weather and rebounding global economic activity – depressed US LNG exports, and prolonged maintenance at Australia’s Gorgon plant. Chart 1Global Gas Benchmarks Collapsed In 1H20 Chart 2Relative Prices Will Favor Additional US LNG Exports As storage-related fears abate, LNG economics is turning favorable for cargoes to be delivered in 4Q20 and 1Q21. This will allow exports of US gas to Europe and Asia to resume as regional demand rises. This improvement is already apparent in relative futures curves (Chart 2). Still, we expect only limited price gains from current levels, especially in the US. The resurgence in US LNG exports will add to the global supply surplus and cap the upside. Relative prices will remain below LNG offtakers' (exporters) full-cycle costs, limiting additional investments in LNG projects over the medium term. We expect demand to catch up to supply by 2024. Gas Fundamentals Worsened In 2019 Global gas demand increased by 2% y/y in 2019, led by growth in the US and China as coal-to-gas switching intensified amid the low-price environment (Chart 3). However, this rate of growth is a marked slowdown relative to the average 3.5% y/y growth from 2016-2018. It was also slower than the strong global supply growth – up 3.4% y/y – and LNG export growth – up 12.7% y/y. Chart 3US, China Supported Gas Demand Growth In 2019 The US was the largest contributor to both new gas and LNG supply, accounting for 65% of the world’s incremental gas production (Chart 4). The liquefaction capacity addition from the first wave of investments – i.e. projects that received a final investment decision (FID) before 2017 – is now mostly operational. Chart 4US Dominated Natgas Supply And LNG Growth In 2019 US LNG capacity stands at ~10 Bcf/d and serves as a needed pressure valve to its oversupplied domestic market – a consequence of rapid shale production growth – forcing the excess gas to Europe and Asia. However, the economic slowdown in Asia in 2H19 meant the region could no longer adequately absorb these new volumes. As a result, global gas markets moved to a supply-surplus. Relative gas price spreads began trending downward and moved in favor of exports to Europe over Asia.1 Europe plays a growing role as a market of last resort for global natural gas – particularly US LNG – due to its well-developed storage infrastructure, regasification units, and pipeline networks. Around 80% of LNG exports from newly added terminals were absorbed by European markets, and most of that went into storage. Around 40% of the global natural gas supply increase last year ended up in storage, according to the IEA (Chart 5). Moreover, milder-than-expected weather last year exacerbated these trends and forced global prices to converge closer to Henry Hub. Chart 5European Storage Absorbed ~ 40% Of Global Gas Supply Growth By the end of 2019, gas storage in Europe was drastically higher than its 5-year average for that period (Chart 6). Chart 6Elevated US And Europe Gas Storage European Storage Will Stay Below Capacity-Testing Levels Cargo cancellations for September have been markedly lower, a sign of improving – though still oversupplied – fundamentals. Global gas markets confronted the COVID-19 pandemic from a fragile starting point. The shock reinforced the imbalances that began in 2019 and completely erased US LNG’s competitiveness in European and Asian markets. As demand fell in response to lockdowns – down 2.8% in the US and 7% in Europe y/y in Jan-May by IEA’s reckoning – storage in Europe was projected to reach full capacity by end-August.2 Consequently, in June, natural gas prices plunged to a more than two-decade low to incentivize supply and demand adjustments. Around 100 LNG cargoes from the US were cancelled for delivery in June and July, based on EIA estimates (Chart 7). US LNG supply is now the main balancing factor in global gas markets: It is a high-cost source of supply when delivered to Europe or Asia and is contracted under more flexible agreements facilitating cargo cancellations. Over the short term, the number of vessels cancelled each month is an important indicator of storage availability in Europe. The decision to cancel a cargo is complex but mainly depends on whether the spreads between US Henry Hub (HH) and Dutch Title Transfer Facility (TTF) or Japan Korea Marker (JKM) prices cover the exporter's variable costs. Based on a Cheniere-type contract,3 this implies the spread must be higher than 115% of Henry Hub prices plus shipping and regasification costs (Chart 2). Chart 7US LNG Vessel Cancellations Balance Global Gas Markets The spread failed to cover variable costs for most of 2020 and even moved to a premium – i.e. HH above TTF – in July. Moreover, because most contracts have a 40-day to 70-day notice period for cancellation, the supply of US LNG only reacted to the rapid drop in demand with a lag, aggravating the supply surplus and flooding European inventories. The resulting supply adjustments, combined with stronger-than-expected demand in Europe, have slowed the storage injections rates in August and pushed prices higher.4 Cancellations for September have been markedly lower, a sign of improving – though still oversupplied – fundamentals. Forward curve behavior suggests market participants expect US LNG shut-ins, combined with robust demand recovery in Asia and Europe, to move price spreads above variable costs by November this year (Chart 8). This is mostly a consequence of rising Asian LNG prices. We expect this will incentivize added exports of US LNG over the coming months which will move Henry Hub prices slightly higher over the winter. Chart 8Relative Price Spreads Cover LNG Variable Costs, But Not Total Costs In fact, some cargoes are reportedly already selling their gas in forward Asian markets and taking longer routes or reducing their travel speed to remain at sea for longer and profit from these higher deferred prices.5 Still, the increase in US prices will be limited given that relative prices need to remain wide enough to cover LNG variable costs. While global prices will move up gradually over the winter, we believe their upside is bounded by the supply surplus, especially as US exports normalize. At current storage levels, a resurgence of lockdowns in the US or Europe would have drastic consequences, sending prices back below $2/MMBtu. On the demand side, low prices will favor additional coal-to-gas switching as economies recover in 2H20 (Chart 9). Current forward TTF prices are signaling deep drawdowns in European storage this winter as demand in the region increases (Chart 10). Chart 9Cheap Gas Favors Coal-To-Gas Switching Chart 10TTF Forwards Signaling Strong Inventory Draws This Winter In Chart 11, we simulated the remaining of the filling season based on previous monthly seasonal injection rates for Europe. This suggests storage remains at risk of being maxed out by October. However, we believe – in agreement with current forward curves – that the pickup in demand from recovering economic activity, coal-to-gas switching, and lower US exports will further diminish injection rates in Aug-Sep-Oct relative to historical rates (Chart 12). This will allow inventory to reach its seasonal peak slightly below capacity-testing levels. Chart 11Euopean Storage Remains A Significant Downside Risk Chart 12Low US LNG Exports, Warmer Weather Drastically Reduced Injections In July Moreover, flows from Europe to Ukraine should continue freeing up capacity in core EU storage facilities (Chart 13).6 Chart 13Filling Ukrainian Storage Acts As A Safety Valve Chart 14Lower US Gas Supply Slows Inventory Builds In the US, the multi-year-low active gas rigs in the Appalachian basin are starting to weigh on production. Moreover, collapsing oil production in major shale-oil basins is bringing associated gas – which is now more than 16% of total gas production – down rapidly (Chart 14). This contributes to the slowdown in domestic storage injection and to the recent Henry Hub price gains. Still, at current storage levels, a resurgence of lockdowns in the US or Europe would have drastic consequences, sending prices back below $2/MMBtu (Chart 15). Consequently, we believe short-term downside risks from lockdowns are too elevated to try to profit from the limited price increase expected this winter. Chart 15Renewed Lockdowns In Europe Would Push Storage to Capacity   Rising US-Russia Competition Keeps Prices Lower For Longer Global gas markets will stay oversupplied over the medium term. This will keep relative prices between the US and Europe/Asia below LNG exports’ full-cycle costs. In 2019, a record volume of liquefaction capacity reached FID globally (Chart 16). By 2025, global LNG capacity is expected to reach ~73Bcf/d, a ~ 15Bcf/d increase from current levels. Despite the COVID-19 shock, most projects under construction in the US remain on track to be completed as previously scheduled in 2020.7 Global gas markets will stay oversupplied over the medium term. This will keep relative prices between the US and Europe/Asia below LNG exports’ full-cycle costs – i.e. below variable costs plus a fixed contracted liquefaction capacity fee estimated at ~$3/MMBtu. Chart 16Record FID Risks Keeping Markets Oversupplied Mounting competition – especially from Russia – in both Europe and Asia will hold down prices over the coming years. In Europe, the completion of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline would add 5.3Bcf/d of cheap Russian gas supply and could keep prices ~ $1/MMBtu lower than otherwise.8 These new volumes would be absorbed by higher European consumption – fueled by low prices – and lower US LNG exports – from weak relative prices. Geopolitics is a major factor driving Russian behavior and hence oversupply: The US and Russia will vie with each other for market share in Europe. As gas markets further liberalize globally, Europe will be increasingly essential for US LNG as its destination of last resort in times of low demand elsewhere. If Russia floods this market with gas, it reduces Europe’s ability to absorb US gas, which will lead to lower Henry Hub prices. It will shut in US supply in times of low demand, making investments there riskier. While US administrations of either party almost always attempt to engage Russia at the beginning of a four-year term, the US foreign policy establishment no longer believes that engagement with Russia is beneficial (Chart 17). This is apparent under the Russia-friendly Trump administration but will be especially relevant if the Democratic Party wins the White House in November. Democrats blame Russia for undermining and ultimately reversing the Obama administration’s policies by betraying the US-Russia diplomatic “reset” and interfering in the 2016 election. Chart 17Russian Geopolitical Risk Set To Increase Even If Trump Re-Elected Hence the US will continue to impose sanctions on Russia and probably on a range of companies involved in Nord Stream 2 and Turkstream. If both pipelines are completed, then Washington will ask Europe to compensate for its Russia dealings in other ways. Meanwhile Russia will use a combination of commercial and strategic measures to woo Germany and the Europeans so that they do not commit to preferential bilateral deals with the United States. Because the US and Russia are engaged in a great power struggle – rather than healthy trade competition – they will attempt to achieve their aims through means other than price and volume. Punitive measures will create volatility by occasionally removing supplies but probably cannot change the backdrop of oversupply. The gist is that US-Russia relations will remain antagonistic and Europe will benefit from the oversupply except during times of surprise sanctions and strategic blows. In China, we expect imports of US LNG to increase. However, rising Russian LNG and pipeline supplies, increasing domestic gas output, and a persistent global oversupply of gas will limit the incentives for Chinese buyers to sign long-term agreements with US exporters at a price above full-cycle costs – i.e. ~ $7/MMBtu.9 The ongoing US-China trade conflict will encourage China to use US LNG imports as a negotiating lever. This has large implications for the US gas market, as LNG capacity represents ~ 11% of its domestic supply – based on 1H20 production levels. Low demand growth for its gas in Europe or Asia will keep Henry Hub prices low to limit supply growth from shale gas and limit investment in additional liquefaction capacity. Here too geopolitics will undermine Henry Hub prices: China is strengthening economic ties with its strategic partner, Russia, and the ongoing US-China trade conflict will encourage China to use US LNG imports as a negotiating lever. A Biden administration would approach China differently from the Trump administration but it would still have to face fundamental trade tensions due to China’s mercantilism and the US attempt to contain China’s technological rise. China is crucial for global LNG demand growth, but trade tensions will reignite even under Biden and spill over into China’s demand for US commodities. China has substitutes for American LNG. If trade tensions affect China’s imports of US LNG then they will lead to lower Henry Hub prices and possibly to vessel cancellations, especially if European storage once again proves unable to absorb these exports during the injection season. The Biden administration will not ultimately be China-friendly, looking beyond any diplomatic “reset” in its first year, and thus the risk of China diversifying away from US LNG is real. Global natgas prices are moving up, ahead of this winter, but gains will be limited by the persistent oversupply. There are currently more than 6Bcf/d of approved, not yet FID, projects in the US. We do not expect much of this capacity to move forward until LNG economics turn favorable and buyers’ willingness to sign long-term contracts comes back. Large projects expected to start closer to 2025 – e.g. Shell’s LNG Canada and Total’s Mozambique LNG – could be delayed to the second half of the decade. On the demand side, persistent low prices will reinforce two ongoing trends. First, this will favor additional coal-to-gas switching in most regions, helping demand to catch up to supply by 2024 and eventually forcing European and Asian prices significantly higher in anticipation of tighter fundamentals. Second, low spot LNG prices in Asia and the availability of flexible supply will accelerate the shift to a merchant/trading market.10 The movement toward shorter and non-indexed-oil contracts continued in 2019, with spot and short term contracts reaching 34% of total LNG flows in 2019, up 32% vs. 2018 (Chart 18). The COVID-19 shock augmented the incentive to switch to non-oil-indexed contracts given the steep discount it created in LNG spot market prices versus oil-indexed contracts. Based on our Brent price forecasts, we expect this divergence to persist in 2021 (Chart 19). Chart 18Shorter, Gas-On-Gas Contracts Will Increase In Asia Chart 19Spot Prices Will Decouple From Oil-Indexed Again In 2021 The convergence in regional prices that began in 2019 is disrupting the standard LNG model based on significant regional price spreads. Low and uniform prices reduce the arbitrage of moving gas overseas. Companies will need to start using sophisticated financial instruments and will increasingly resort to spot and futures markets, like in oil markets.11 Crucially, our expectation that demand will catch up to supply assumes government policies aimed at reducing carbon emissions continue being implemented in major consuming countries. Future gas consumption is a function of economic – i.e. price incentives – and policy variables. A reversal in China’s environmental policies could drastically slow gas demand growth and remains a risk to our view. At present China’s policy setting aims for growth recovery at all costs, but the driver of Xi Jinping’s green policy is the middle class demand for healthier air and environment (Chart 20). Hence the slog to diversify away from coal will resume over the medium and long run. Bottom Line: The large collapse in prices will remain bearish for US LNG over the short term as global gas markets remain firmly oversupplied and storage levels hew dangerously close to maximum capacity. Global natgas prices are moving up, ahead of this winter, but gains will be limited by the persistent oversupply. Relative prices will be capped close to variable costs. These unfavorable conditions for additional investments in LNG projects could create a supply deficit later in the decade. Chart 20China"s Green Policy Is Driven By Its Growing Middle Class   Hugo Bélanger Associate Editor Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com         Footnotes 1     These destination adjustments in response to price incentives are possible because of the flexibility in US long-term LNG agreements. These contracts, for the most part, have no predetermined destination clause. 2     For instance see "NWE gas storage sites could be 'almost' full by end-August: Platts Analytics" published by S&P Global Platts on May 21, 2020. 3    There exists two main types of LNG contracts in the US: (1) Tolling agreements in which the LNG exporter needs to secure the feedgas, transport the gas to the liquefaction facility, and ship it to the buyer. In this model, the LNG operator charges a fixed fee – usually in the range of $2.25 to $3.5/MMBtu, paid regardless of whether they use their contracted LNG space to liquefy the gas. The ownership of the gas remains in the hand of the offtaker. (2) Chienere-type agreements – or a hybrid merchant-tolling structure – in which the LNG operator secures the feedgas and transports it to its liquefaction facilities. It takes ownership of the gas until it is liquefied and sold to the exporter responsible for shipping the gas to the final buyer – the pricing scheme is usually ~115% of Henry Hub gas prices + a fixed liquefaction fee. In the US, the Cove Point, Freeport, Cameron, and Elba terminals mostly use the tolling model, while all of Cheniere’s installations – i.e. Sabine Pass and Corpus Christi – are operating under Cheniere-type models. In our analysis we use the Cheniere-type as it is slightly more flexible and seems more vulnerable to cargo cancellations – subject to a penalty, or fixed fee, to ensure a reliable cash flow to Cheniere. Moreover, it is difficult to estimate how much of the shipping cost are truly variable, some offtakers have long-term shipping contracts to diminish total variable costs. Please see “Steady as She Goes, Part 5 - How Global Prices Drive U.S. LNG Cargo Destinations,” published by RBN Energy on August 1, 2020 for a detailed discussion of LNG exporters’ costs. 4    Maintenance delays at Australia’s Gorgon LNG plant also contributed to the price increase, especially in Asia. Please see "Chevron says expects to restart Train 2 of Gorgon LNG plant in early September" published by reuters.com on July 28, 2020 for more details. 5    Please see "Buyers of U.S. LNG cancel September cargoes but pace slows, sources say," published by reuters.com on July 21, 2020. 6    Since May this year, the Ukrainian storage and gas pipeline managing company UkrTransGaz started offering discounts on transportation fees and other arrangements to incentivize European traders to storage gas at their facilities. Natgas stored by non-resident in customs warehouses with UkrTransGaz are more than four times higher than last year. Please see “European gas storage: backhaul helps open the Ukrainian safety valve,” published by Oxford Institute For Energy Studies in May 2020. 7     A few projects reported lockdown-related delays of up to 4 months. 8    Please see "Nord Stream 2 and the battle for gas market share in Europe" published by Wood Mackenzie on July 24, 2020. 9    Please see “No Upside: The U.S. LNG Buildout Faces Price Resistance From China,” published by The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), July 2020. 10   We highlighted in our October 4, 2018 report titled "US Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market" that the large LNG supply expansion in the US would incentivize consumers to shorten the tenor of oil-indexed contracts, replacing them with hedgeable futures-based contracts. 11    Please see “Covid-19 And The Energy Transition,” published by Oxford Institute For Energy Studies in July 2020. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Trade Recommendation Performance In 2020 Q2 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2020 Summary of Closed Trades

Special Report

Highlights Theoretically the US could employ a “Reverse Kissinger” strategy – befriend Russia to isolate China or at least prevent the budding Russo-Chinese alliance.  But Trump has made no headway in relations with Russia. Meanwhile Democrats now see engagement with Putin as a failure and will pursue a more aggressive policy. Competition in Europe’s natural gas market underscores the broader Russo-American geopolitical confrontation. Russia will likely succeed in preserving its share in the European natural gas market in the medium term, but not in the long run. We remain overweight Russian equities and bonds relative to EM benchmarks, but will downgrade if Biden’s election becomes a foregone conclusion. Feature Investors do not need to wait for the US election verdict to assess the general trajectory of US-Russia relations. Some points are clear regardless of whether President Trump or former Vice President Joe Biden prevails: US-Russia engagement had mostly but not entirely failed between the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 and President Trump’s election in 2016.   President Trump could not break free of the constraints of office and his administration has remained adversarial toward Russia despite his preference for deeper engagement. Whether Democrats or Republicans take the White House in 2021, the result will be confrontation with Russia over the four-year term and likely beyond. The geopolitical risk premium in the Russian ruble will rise relative to its current level. A Trump victory would reduce this risk, but only temporarily.   The Failure Of Engagement Russia’s rise from the ashes of the Soviet Union can be illustrated by our Geopolitical Power Index – it shows Russia’s rise relative to the US in terms of demographic, economic, technological, commercial, and military variables that make a nation strong (Chart 1). Chart 1Russia Rose From Soviet Ashes, But Still Lags US Russia is a shadow of its Soviet self and lags far behind the US in raw capability. But its recovery from the chaos of the 1998 financial crisis, fueled by a global commodity bull market, has consisted of a systematic removal of domestic political constraints. It is politically unified under the personal rule of Putin, has reformed its economy and modernized its military, and has successfully pushed back against the US and the West in its sphere of influence. Russia punches above its economic weight in the world by means of its military, which it has wielded opportunistically in Georgia, Ukraine, Syria, and Libya (Chart 2). Neither the US nor any other power was willing to fill the power vacuum in these locations. A Trump victory only temporarily reduces the rise in Russian geopolitical risk. The US and Russia have a fundamentally antagonistic relationship over influence in Europe and occasionally the Far East. They have little need to trade with each other. They are both large, independent commodity exporters and advanced weapon-makers separated by vast distances. Russia is threatened by the US’s military and technological superiority, its economic strength and newfound status as an energy exporter (see energy section), and its ability to undermine Russian legitimacy in the former Soviet sphere by promoting democracy.  Russia’s advantage is that the US is internally divided by political factions. Putin’s popular approval has benefited from his restoration of domestic order and Russia’s standing as a great power. Successive American presidents have floundered under domestic partisanship and polarization (Chart 3).   Chart 2Russia’s Military Punches Above Its Economic Weight Chart 3Russia Is Politically Unified, The US is Internally Divided   Attempts to “reset” relations have failed.1 The Barack Obama administration’s 2009-11 Reset, announced by Biden, saw several concrete compromises, including the New START treaty and Russia’s joining the WTO. But the Bolotnaya Square protests in 2011-12, at the height of the Arab Spring, rekindled Moscow’s fear that the US aimed to foment “color revolutions” not only in Russia’s periphery but even in Russia itself. Faced with losing its control over Ukraine’s geopolitical orientation, Russia invaded parts of Ukraine and seized Crimea, the first military annexation of territory in Europe since World War II. The US and Europe applied extensive sanctions that last to this day and drag on Russian growth.2  True, Moscow cooperated on the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran. Russia does not want Iran to get nuclear weapons. Yet this is not imminent. And Russia gained global oil market share when the US walked away from the deal and restarted sanctions (Chart 4). Either way, Iran survives as a Russian ally capable of exerting influence across the Middle East.   President Trump launched another attempt at engagement with Russia. If there is a strategic basis for this policy – i.e. if it is not just based in Trump’s personal proclivities – then it is the idea of a “Reverse Kissinger” maneuver. During the Cold War, the US befriended Maoist China in order to isolate the Soviet Union. Today, with China posing the clear threat to US hegemony, the US could try to befriend Russia to isolate China or at least prevent the budding Russo-Chinese alliance.  The difference is that in 1972, American and Chinese interests were complementary. China wished to stabilize its borders and the US offered geopolitical relief as well as technology and knowhow. Today American and Russian interests are not complementary other than the political convenience of demonizing each other (Chart 5). The US offers Russia limited investment capital; Russia does not offer cheap labor or a vast consumer market. Chart 4Russia’s Oil Market Share Benefitted From Iran Sanctions Chart 5US-Russo Interests Are Not Complementary   The Trump administration’s attempt to engage Putin has failed. Putin’s declaration of a global oil market share war this year drove American shale oil companies into bankruptcy during an election year. Barring an “October surprise” engineered by Putin to get Trump reelected, their “alliance” is at best rhetorical and at worst a mirage. Putin might favor Trump because he sharpens US internal divisions, or because he has an isolationist foreign policy preference, but Putin’s actions so far in 2020 suggest a deeper strategic reality: Russia seeks to foment political turmoil in the US, not solidify either of the parties in power, as the latter could backfire against Russia. What Comes After Engagement? Russia lacks the power to create a new world order, but it will continue to leverage its relative power to exercise a veto over affairs in the current global order, in which US influence is weakening. It can hasten the West’s decline by sowing divisions within the West. Chart 6COVID-19 Dented Support For Trump And Putin What happens when US polarization falls and a new political consensus takes shape? This would pose a major threat to Putin’s strategic options. Thus it is relevant if Joe Biden wins the 2020 election with a strong majority and a full Democratic sweep of government. Presidents Trump and Putin, and their political parties, are among the worst performers amid the COVID-19 pandemic and recession (Chart 6). The implication is that Trump will lose the election and Putin will resort to time-tried techniques of confrontation with the West to restore his domestic support. Democrats will pursue a more aggressive policy toward Russia. The Democrats harbor a deep vendetta against Russia over its interference in the 2016 election and will go on the offensive to prevent Russia from trying to undermine their grip on power again. They will also seek to deter Russia from further undermining American strategic interests. Biden will try to revive NATO, expand US troop presence in eastern Europe, and promote democracy and human rights in Russia’s periphery, using the Internet to launch a disinformation campaign against Putin’s regime. Cyber warfare will escalate.  A “Reverse Kissinger” is not achievable until Russia feels threatened by China. The silver lining for Russia is economic: Biden’s policies will help to weaken the dollar and cultivate a global growth recovery. Biden will be less inclined to start disruptive Trump-style trade war with China that could permanently damage China’s potential growth or global growth. Chinese imports are essential to propping up Russia’s sluggish economy. In enabling commodity prices to recover, and reducing global policy uncertainty, Biden would inadvertently aid Russian recovery (Chart 7). Chart 7The Silver Lining Of A Biden Presidency For Russia Is A Weaker Dollar Ultimately Russia is insecure because the US threatens to undermine its economy and political legitimacy both at home and in its strategic buffers. Putin has re-centralized control while shutting out foreign influence. This approach is not changing anytime soon given the recent constitutional changes to prolong Putin’s rule till 2036. Preliminary reports claim that, with 65% of the public voting, these changes were ratified by 76% of the population.3  What changed is that the US is no longer as optimistic about engaging Russia. If anything, its internal divisions will encourage it to go on the offensive. Sanctions may well be expanded before they are eased, the Ukraine conflict could revive rather than simmer down, and new fronts in the conflict could widen, particularly in cyberspace. This is particularly the case if Biden wins the White House in November. The structural, geopolitical risk premium of US-Russia conflict is priced into Russian assets, but there is room for a cyclical increase if Biden is elected. Our market-based Russian geopolitical risk indicators – which define geopolitical risk as excessive ruble weakness relative to its macro context – show that Russian risk is elevated because of COVID-19, but dropping. The US election should reverse this trend, unless Trump wins (Chart 8). Chart 8Russian Geopolitical Risk Set To Increase Even If Trump Re-Elected Alternative measures of political risk that utilize non-market variables support our qualitative assessment, such as the indicator provided by GeoQuant. The implication is that Russian political risk is higher than the market is pricing (Chart 9). Chart 9Market Is Underpricing Russian Political Risk Kissinger Reversed? Not Yet. If Trump wins, could he not engineer a major détente with Russia? In 2018 the US shifted its national defense strategy to emphasize that “the central challenge to US prosperity and security is the reemergence of long-term, strategic competition,” arguing specifically that “it is increasingly clear that China and Russia want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model.4”  Yet US geopolitical power has declined such that taking an offensive approach to Russia and China simultaneously is not practicable.  If the US pursues the Reverse Kissinger strategy, then it will have to make major concessions to Putin’s Russia. It would need to provide substantial sanctions relief, accept the Crimean annexation, allow a high degree of Russian influence in Donbass (Ukraine), abandon hopes of retribution for the 2016 election interference, ask for a return to the 2015 nuclear deal on Iran at best, and settle for arms control agreements that do not cover new technologies. It is not clear that President Trump would concede this much in a second term, though in most cases he would have the power to do so. Yet Moscow cannot downgrade its cooperation with Beijing by much, since US-Russia détente never lasts long and China weighs more heavily in its economic calculus than the West’s sanctions. Chart 10US-Russo Struggle Is Subordinate To US-Sino Conflict The Democrats, by contrast, are not prepared to make these concessions, particularly on 2016. They are more willing to pursue a gradualist approach in dealing with China, which they believe is less urgent due to shared economic interests.5  If the US confronts Russia, then Russia will draw closer to China. The informal alliance between these two powers is well advanced. A closer association provides China with a better position in waging its long-term geopolitical competition with the United States.  Ultimately US grand strategy and public opinion will drive American presidents to take a harder line on China because it rivals the US in economic resilience and technology over the long run (Chart 10). The conflict with Moscow will eventually be subordinate to the US-China struggle. But a “Reverse Kissinger” is not achievable until Russia feels threatened by China, either through its own weakness or Chinese strength. A much stronger trans-Atlantic alliance, or much greater Chinese influence over East Asia and/or the Middle East, could trigger a shift in Russian strategy. We are not there yet. Russia’s cooperation with China will deepen, strengthening China’s hand and making it all the more imperative for the United States to solidify the trans-Atlantic alliance with Europe. Otherwise the risk of a precipitous decline in American power will threaten global stability.  Bottom Line: US-Russian antagonism will continue for the foreseeable future. Russian geopolitical risk is underpriced, particularly if Biden wins the election. A Trump victory would offer only a temporary reprieve.  Direct Competition In Energy Russia can offer low cost natural gas alongside an existing and projected (under construction) network of pipelines into Europe. This capability will help it to sustain and marginally increase its market share in Europe relative to the US in the medium term. In turn, this will help Russia secure vital revenues for its macro stability.  Natural gas exports to Europe represent 2.5% of GDP or 9% of total exports. A Biden presidency is negative for Russian assets, but Russia has room to ease policy. In the long run, however, US LNG will challenge Russia’s share in the European natural gas market. On the whole, the US sees Russia as an economic competitor in the European natural gas market and it will continue to disrupt Russian natural gas exports to Europe through sanctions and/or by other means. A resulting market share war between the US and Russia will lead to low natural gas prices benefitting the consumer, Europe. Competition in Europe’s natural gas market underscores the broader geopolitical confrontation between the US and Russia. The following factors will shape heightened competition: Escalating Competition For European Natural Gas Market Europe will remain a major market for natural gas. The combination of falling domestic production, steady consumption growth and the ongoing structural shift to cleaner sources of energy will require greater imports of natural gas (Chart 11). Critically, Europe’s natural gas consumption might rise faster than its GDP making this market attractive to energy producers. According to the IEA, Europe’s consumption of natural gas will continue to grow at a steady rate over the next 5 years. In a nutshell, European policymakers are promoting cleaner energy such as natural gas over coal and nuclear energy. This push will facilitate rising demand for natural gas.  Yet, European natural gas production is expected to drop by 40%, driven by field closures in the Netherlands and the UK.  As such, the diverging gap between falling production and steady consumption opens up a space for both Russian and US natural gas exports into the continent. Russia Natural Gas Strategy: Russia and its largest natural gas producer, Gazprom, are aiming to increase their share in the European market from their current 36% to 40% (Chart 12). Chart 11Europe's Nat Gas Imports Will Continue Growing... Chart 12...Allowing Russia To Grab Market Share   Table 1Russia’s Pipeline Export Capacity More specifically, Russia’s latest 2035 strategy (known as ES-2035) reaffirms its two-pronged strategy: (i) continue to provide low-cost natural gas to Europe and Asia through pipelines and (ii) developing LNG export capacity for exports to the Far East. Pipelines: Russia’s export capacity to Europe is set to increase to 190 Bcm/y by 2022 excluding existing transit routes passing through Ukraine (Table 1). Two new sources of pipeline routes will be the Nord Stream2, coming online by the end of this year, and Turk Stream, expected to come online by 2022. These pipelines will have an export capacity of 55 Bcm/y and 31.5/y Bcm, respectively (Map 1).   Map 1Russia’s Latest Pipelines Bypass Ukraine Chart 13Russian Natural Gas Exports To Non-CIS Countries Meanwhile, pipeline capacity through Ukraine will remain 140 Bcm/y. Ultimately, Russia has been determined to diversify its natural gas transit routes despite pressures from the US.6 In addition, Gazprom natural gas production for transport via pipeline is expected to increase by 35% to 983 Bcm in the next 15 years. The European market is essential to Russia’s export revenues, as it currently represents 56% of Russia’s total gas export volumes compared with 83% total export to non-CIS countries (Chart 13). Lastly, regarding natural gas pricing, Gazprom will continue to move away from oil-indexed long-term contracts to shorter-term spot market contracts. This change of tack will cause deflation in Gazprom’s export prices to Europe but will preserve Russia’s market share in its strategic European market.   LNG: Russia will continue to be one the top four LNG producers alongside Qatar, Australia and the US. According to the latest estimates by the IEA, Russian exports of LNG, currently at 39 Bcm, are set to expand by 20% by 2025. The development of the Yamal peninsula into a major natural gas and LNG hub will allow Russia to produce close to 110 Bcm of LNG by 2035, which will constitute 16% of its overall current gas production. This will lead to continued LNG exports to various markets, particularly Europe, which consumes 50% of Russia’s LNG exports. Imported technology from Europe and external financing from China have allowed Novatek, Russia’s second largest natural gas producer, to become the leader in production and exports of LNG. Russia is also investing heavily in liquefaction. It is now fifth globally in liquefaction capacity. There are currently $21 billion in pre-final investment decision (FID) from the LNG Artic 2 in the Yamal that will increase its liquefaction capacity by over 200% by 2026.  Lastly, it is estimated that 70-80% of total commodity exporters’ costs are sourced locally and are in rubles due to the import substitution policy adopted by Moscow in 2015. This will alleviate cost pressures arising from a potentially weaker ruble in exploiting the Yamal reserves. US Needs To Find A Market For Its LNG: US produces 920 bcm/y of natural gas but consumes only 830 bcm/y. The rest is available for export. The need to export rising excess of natural gas output puts the US in direct competition with other natural gas exporters such as Russia. Chart 14US LNG Exports To Europe To Rise In the medium term, an oversupplied market alongside the COVID-19-induced demand shock in Europe will reduce European natural gas demand, hurting both the US and Russia. US LNG might lose market share in the European market to Russia due to falling production arising from capex cuts and bankruptcies in the US natural gas sector.7 Yet, in the long run, Europe’s geopolitical ties with the US and strategic interest in diversifying away from Russia make US LNG an obvious area of cooperation. The Trump-Juncker agreement in July 2018 led to a 300% increase in US LNG exports to Europe before the COVID-19 pandemic (Chart 14). Since coming into effect, the agreement also resulted in a doubling of EU utilization of LNG regasification capacity, from 30% to close to 60% in early 2020 and is expected to continue expanding in the years to come. Bottom Line: Russia will likely succeed in at least preserving its share in the European natural gas market in the medium term, but will be challenged by US LNG in the long run. Macro And Financial Market Implications For Russia Chart 15Russia: Low Public Debt Burden Heightened confrontation with the US and new sanctions on Russia will materialize if Biden wins the presidency. All else constant, this is unfavourable for Russian asset prices. It should be noted, however, that years of fiscal conservativism, tight monetary policy, a prudent and pro-active bank regulatory stance as well as some success in import substitution have given Russia the capacity to offset negative external shocks by easing macro policy: Russia has one of the lowest public debt-to-GDP ratios among the largest countries in the world. Its total public debt stands at 13.5% of GDP (Chart 15). Its external public debt is at a mere 4% of GDP. As in many other countries, Russia’s fiscal deficit is widening sharply due to the pandemic and low oil prices. However, we expect the primary and overall fiscal deficits will be only 4.25% and 5% of GDP in 2020, respectively. So far, at 3.5% of GDP, the announced fiscal stimulus in response to the pandemic has been small by global standards. Russia has room to boost fiscal expenditure substantially this year and in the coming years to offset negative external shocks. The Central Bank still has room to reduce interest rates further. The real policy rate is 2.5% compared with 1% for EM ex-China, Korea and Taiwan (Chart 16, top panel). Russia’s local currency government bond yields offer value: their real yield is 2.5% compared with the EM GBI benchmark real yield of 1.5% (Chart 16, bottom panel). The Central Bank of the Russian Federation will refrain from QE-type policies (i.e., public debt monetization). This is a plus for the ruble relative to other EM currencies where central banks are engaged in QEs. Bank lending rates remain extremely elevated in Russia and local currency credit penetration is reasonably low (Chart 17). Companies and banks’ external indebtedness has declined from $1,200 bn in 2014 to $900 bn currently. Chart 16Russian Real Rates Offer Value Chart 17Russia: Real Lending Rates Are Too Elevated!   Authorities have cleaned up the banking system. The number of banks has dropped from 1000 in 2010 to 430. Banks have written down and provisioned for a large amount of loans. All of these reduce Russia’s vulnerability to negative shocks. Finally, pressured by US and EU sanctions, Russia has been moderately successful in import substitution as we discussed in a previous report. The nation has expanded its productive capacity, especially in agriculture and some other industries. As a result, it now has more room to deploy fiscal and monetary stimulus to boost demand that will be satisfied by domestic rather than foreign output. In short, fiscal and monetary stimulus will not cause the currency to plunge. On the negative side, the outlook for productivity growth remains lukewarm. Russia’s long-term economic outlook will be characterized by relative stability but low growth, as has been the case in recent years. Combining our geopolitical and macro analysis, two conclusions stand out. First, we remain overweight Russian equities as well as both local currency and US dollar bonds relative to their EM benchmarks. If Trump stages a comeback over the next four months, which is not impossible, then the geopolitical risk premium will continue to fall. Trump would offer a reprieve in tensions for a year or two.  Second, the US election threatens this view because Joe Biden is currently heavily favoured to beat Trump and if he does, he is likely to impose fresh sanctions on Russia, possibly as early as 2021. Therefore, if Biden’s election becomes a foregone conclusion, we will downgrade Russian assets. Matt Gertken  Vice President Geopolitical Strategist  mattg@bcaresearch.com Andrija Vesic Associate Editor andrijav@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  Michael McFaul, From Cold War To Hot Peace: The Inside Story of Russia and America (London: Penguin, 2018). 2  International Monetary Fund, “Russian Federation: 2019 Article IV Consultation,” IMF Country Report 19/260 (August 2019). 3  Ann M. Simmons and Georgi Kantchev, “Russians Vote for Overhaul That Could Keep Putin in Power Until 2036,” Wall Street Journal, July 1, 2020.  4  “Summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America: Sharpening The American Military’s Competitive Edge,” Department of Defense, 2018. 5  Victoria Nuland, “Pinning Down Putin: How A Confident America Should Deal With Russia,” Foreign Affairs, July/August 2020. 6  The US has tried to stop Russia’s expansion of pipelines into Europe in the past. Evidenced from both Kennedy and Reagan administration policies directed towards the building of the Friendship oil pipeline in the 1960s and the Brotherhood gas pipeline in the 1980s, respectively. In response, Russia began developing its own technological capacity through import substitution, hurting western firms in the process. 7  "U.S. natural gas giant Chesapeake Energy goes bankrupt,” CBC, June 29, 2020.