Energy & Commodities

Corn Rebounds From Drop to Lowest Since 2010 Before USDA Reports

Corn

Corn rallied on speculation a slump to the lowest level in 34 months may spur demand before the U.S. Department of Agriculture updates its production estimates.

Corn for December delivery climbed as much as 0.7 percent to $4.6225 a bushel on the Chicago Board of Trade and was at $4.6025 by 1:41 p.m. in Singapore. Prices dropped to $4.55 yesterday, the lowest since since Oct. 4, 2010.

The grain tumbled 34 percent this year, the second-worst performer on the Standard & Poor’s GSCI Spot Index of 24 commodities, as the USDA predicts domestic output will rebound to a record. The government is set to release net export sales data tomorrow and update its output forecasts, based on farmer and field surveys, on Aug. 12.

“The low of $4.55 should act as a support level,” said Faiyaz Hudani, an analyst at Kotak Commodity Services Ltd. “A relief rally for a week or so may be witnessed, it depends on how the USDA data comes on Monday. If the data is a little bit supportive, we’re looking at a bounce back.”

All that U.S. shale oil has significantly improved the U.S. trade picture.

The nation’s trade deficit ballooned to nearly $70 billion a month in 2006, but the gap has remained considerably lower since then thanks in no small part to soaring production of domestic petroleum.

In June, the difference between how much petroleum the U.S. imports and exports in dollar terms fell to its lowest level in almost four years: $17.4 billion. The gap had leaped to a record $42.4 billion just five years earlier.

The picture looks similarly bright in inflation-adjusted terms. The so-called real oil deficit shrank to $11.4 billion in June vs. a high of $24.1 billion in 2005, using a three-month rolling average.

What’s Behind July’s 9% Rise in Crude Oil Prices

15506523-crude-oil-price-rise--vector-illustration-with-barrel-and-diagram“U.S. crude oil prices finished the month of July on a very positive note. Front-month futures ended July at just above $105 a barrel. That put those futures up about 9% for July, the largest one-month gain for crude oil in 11 months.”

U.S. crude oil prices finished the month of July on a very positive note. Front-month futures ended July at just above $105 a barrel.

That put those futures up about 9% for July, the largest one-month gain for crude oil in 11 months.

Part of the reason for the upward move is the usual geopolitical tension in the Middle East and North Africa with Egypt at the forefront right now.

Current OPEC oil production is also a problem.

The International Energy Agency’s latest monthly report showed OPEC output dropped in June by 370,000 barrels a day. Production fell in Iraq, Libya and Nigeria, and Saudi Arabia was not able to compensate for the lost output entirely.

Saudi production is already at 9.7 million barrels a day, not far below its 2012 peak output of 10.1 million barrels a day. So many in the industry believe the Saudis have little spare production capacity left to make up for shortfalls elsewhere in OPEC.

Another key reason for oil’s rise is literally physical, as pointed out by Money Morning Global Energy Strategist Dr. Kent Moors.

U.S. government numbers showed that oil inventories at the Cushing, OK delivery center fell for the fifth straight week to levels not seen since April 2012. New infrastructure is moving oil from the former oil choke point at Cushing to facilities on the U.S. Gulf coast.

There are other very fundamental reasons behind oil’s move higher. . .

What’s Driving Oil Prices Higher

First and foremost is an unexpected increase in demand for oil from the developed world.

In the United States, oil refineries are processing the most crude oil since 2005.

Part of that is due to increased refining capacity with the opening this year of the largest U.S. refinery—the Motiva refinery in Port Arthur, TX, which is owned by Royal Dutch Shell and Saudi Aramco. Once again, improved infrastructure—pipeline and rails—has raised refineries’ access to crude oil.

This other source of increased demand may surprise you. . .

Oil demand in Europe has risen recently, contributing to the price jump. Government data for April and May showed that overall oil demand in Europe rose for the first time in two years.

Data shows that demand for diesel rose now for three months in a row. That is a sure sign of trucks making more trips (as a result of increased economic activity), as reported by David Wech, an analyst at JBC Energy in Vienna, to the Financial Times.

The ECB’s less-aggressive stance than the Fed’s seems to be working in reviving the European economy.

The first consecutive gains in oil demand since the beginning of 2011 mean that Europe will have its first quarter of growth in crude oil demand since 2010.

A further indication of strong European demand for oil is the fact that Brent crude oil futures are in backwardation – that is, traders are paying a premium for oil for immediate delivery.

QE and Crude Oil Prices

One final reason for oil’s rise is the continued easy monetary policies followed by the developed world’s central bankers.

There is a lot of liquidity in the financial markets, thanks to the Fed, the Bank of Japan and the European Central Bank. A lot of money is pouring into stocks—the stock market’s recent rally is predicated on traders’ belief that “tapering” of asset purchases by the U.S. Federal Reserve will now not likely happen until early 2014.

People worried about preserving their wealth are using crude oil as an insurance policy – a position like the one gold has held for so long.

Indeed, Money Morning’s Moors says that the Fed’s QE (quantitative easing) policy is positioning crude oil as “a store of market value.”

With loose monetary policies being with us for the foreseeable future, expect oil prices to rise long-term.

And if China and the emerging world resume their torrid growth, oil prices may surprise to the upside even more.

Tony Daltorio
Money Morning

 

Gold: This is Not Looking Good

Gold’s Price Moves from Different Perspectives

 

When we take into account last week’s events, it seems that the yellow metal is more sensitive to signs of tapering than any other asset. According to Reuters, gold slipped to a two-week low on Friday after falling through a key technical level near $1,300 as strong U.S. economic data raised fears that the Federal Reserve may start to taper its commodities-supportive stimulus measures. Losses pushed gold towards its worst weekly performance in a month. However, the shiny metal rebounded sharply from a low at $1,285 to $1,317 after weaker than expected US non-farm payrolls.

Does it mean that the Federal Reserve may have to push back plans to taper the current round of quantitative easing? A push-back of the plans is believed to be bearish for the US dollar and bullish for gold. Will we see a bullish scenario in the precious metals market? Or maybe recent gains are just a result of speculation and gold’s position will deteriorate?

In our previous essay we wrote that if you want to be an effective and profitable investor, you should look at the situation from different perspectives and make sure that the actions that you are about to take are really justified. That’s why in today’s essay we examine the gold chart from the European perspective and we check how gold stocks move relative to gold. Do they provide us with interesting clues as to the next possible moves in the entire sector? Let’s take a closer look at the charts below and find out for ourselves (charts courtesy by http://stockcharts.com).

radomski august52013 1

We hit off with a short recap of what’s been going on with the Euro Index recently. After an invalidation of the bearish head-and-shoulders pattern on July 10, the European currency continued its rally throughout the next two weeks. Although the euro climbed up and improved its position, the buyers didn’t manage to push it above the 133 level on July 25. This psychological resistance level slowed the rally and triggered a consolidation.

At this point, it’s worth mentioning that this price action in the euro led to further weakness in the dollar. Although these changes should have had bullish implications for gold, the yellow metal didn’t move sharply above the highs it had established on July 23 and July 24. In the following days, metals declined even though the dollar moved lower which is a strong bearish sign.

Another bearish factor on the above chart is the declining resistance line based on the January top and the June peak. We saw its impact on the euro last Wednesday. The European currency touched this declining resistance line without breaking it. From this perspective, it seems that the top may very well be in, which is a bearish factor for the precious metals sector.

In the recent days, the Euro Index declined below the 132 level and is still trading below the previously mentioned 133 level. If the euro declines further, we might see another head-and-shoulders pattern on a smaller scale.

The combination of the psychological resistance level and the above-mentioned declining resistance line may have encouraged sellers to go short and thus trigger a correction.  In this case, the Euro Index will likely bounce off the psychological resistance level at 133 once again. If we see such a bearish scenario, it would likely lead to a strengthening in the dollar which could then lead to medium-term weakness in precious metals.

Once we know the current situation in the European currency, let’s take a closer look at gold priced in the euro.

radomski august52013 2

On the above chart, we see that the situation hasn’t changed much from what we saw in the previous weeks. Gold priced in euro remains below the 50-day moving average, which still serves as resistance. Moreover, the yellow metal didn’t break out above the previously broken, important long-term support line which turned into resistance.

Therefore, from the European perspective, the situation looks quite bearish for the short term and it doesn’t look too optimistic. However, if we want to have a more complete picture of the situation, we should examine another factor which is used to provide important signals for the precious metals market – the way gold stocks move relative to gold.

Let’s start with the HUI-to-gold ratio, which is one of the more interesting ratios there are on the precious metals market. After all, gold stocks used to lead gold both higher and lower for years (which wasn’t the case on a very short-term basis in the past few months).

radomski august52013 3

On the above chart we see that the ratio moved above the 50-day moving average in the middle of the June. However, the breakout didn’t change the outlook. The gold-stocks-to-gold ratio still remains below the 2008 bottom. Despite the moves up we saw in July, the breakdown has not been invalidated and the downtrend still appears to be in play here. A downtrend in this ratio indicates that the gold stocks are underperforming gold, not outperforming it.

At this point, it’s worth mentioning that in the gold-stocks-to-gold ratio chart, we didn’t see a continuation of strength last week. Instead of further increases, we saw declines which resulted in a big drop in the HUI:gold ratio on Friday. In this way, the ratio moved below the 50-day moving average which now serves as resistance.

Before we summarize, let’s take a look at the GDX-to-GLD ratio chart.

radomski august52013 4

In the medium-term miners-to-gold ratio chart, we initially saw a breakout above the declining resistance line. However, the RSI level was close to 70. When you take a closer look at the top of the chart, you will see that this level coincided with local peaks in the ratio this year, and the same was seen throughout the precious metals sector.

The following decline (we see it clearly on the above chart) is consistent with our previous observations. The fact that we did not see a huge drop in the recent days doesn’t mean that we won’t see one in the near future. We saw similar price action at the beginning of the June. After a slight decline, there was a major one.

In other words, the previous breakout (in June) was followed by a decline, so the current one is not as bullish as it might seem at first sight.

Summing up, the situation is quite bearish for the short term from the European perspective, and it doesn’t look too optimistic – especially when we take into account the combination of the psychological resistance level at 133 and the strong declining resistance line. The outlook for the mining stocks is also bearish and the trend is still down. The long-term breakdowns have not been invalidated and it seems that lower prices for the whole precious metals sector could follow soon.

Thank you for reading. Have a great and profitable week!

Przemyslaw Radomski, CFA

Founder, Editor-in-chief

Gold Investment & Gold Trading Website – SunshineProfits.com

* * * * *

Disclaimer

All essays, research and information found above represent analyses and opinions of Przemyslaw Radomski, CFA and Sunshine Profits’ associates only. As such, it may prove wrong and be a subject to change without notice. Opinions and analyses were based on data available to authors of respective essays at the time of writing. Although the information provided above is based on careful research and sources that are believed to be accurate, Przemyslaw Radomski, CFA and his associates do not guarantee the accuracy or thoroughness of the data or information reported. The opinions published above are neither an offer nor a recommendation to purchase or sell any securities. Mr. Radomski is not a Registered Securities Advisor. By reading Przemyslaw Radomski’s, CFA reports you fully agree that he will not be held responsible or liable for any decisions you make regarding any information provided in these reports. Investing, trading and speculation in any financial markets may involve high risk of loss. Przemyslaw Radomski, CFA, Sunshine Profits’ employees and affiliates as well as members of their families may have a short or long position in any securities, including those mentioned in any of the reports or essays, and may make additional purchases and/or sales of those securities without notice.

Top 5 Catalysts for Small-Cap Energy Equities

Catalysts are a little like earthquakes: They shake things up. These announcements of drill results, production starts and resource estimates can influence stock prices, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. In this interview with The Energy Report, Jocelyn August, senior analyst and product manager for Sagient Research’s CatalystTracker, explains which catalysts have the biggest effect on small- and large-cap companies and identifies upcoming events that could move the needle in the oil and gas and uranium spaces.

Screen Shot 2013-08-02 at 6.48.21 AMThe Energy Report: Compared to oil and gas, do you think uranium is the best place to be among the small-cap energy commodities?

Jocelyn August: Not necessarily. Oil and gas is also an interesting space, particularly the small caps. Just in the last six months, there have been a lot of catalysts in that area. The large institutional investors are investing a lot in oil and gas and not in uranium.

TER: What are the most important catalysts for larger companies?

JA: Generally, earnings announcements, drill results, production decisions and go/no-go decisions. Anadarko Petroleum Corp. (APC:NYSE) and the Tweneboa-Enyenra-Ntomme (TEN) cluster is a good example. A production decision there will help it a lot. Another good example is Noble Energy Inc. (NBL:NYSE) and its Leviathan project in Israel. Announcements about that are big movers simply because of the project’s size.

TER: What are some patterns among large, private institutions investing in energy equities?

JA: During H1/13, private institutions invested in oil and gas and in alternative energy. There’s not much investment in the uranium space.

TER: What are the top catalysts for small-cap energy equities?

JA: Drill results, with about a 9.6% average stock movement, are number one. The second is the announcement of further drilling on a currently producing site; those announcements move companies about 8.8% on average. For smaller companies, the announcement that drilling is beginning brings 8% on average. Production starts are number four. They’re 7.5% for the small companies, but they generally don’t move the stock much for the larger energy stocks because they’re already baked into the stock price. Third, we notice that large movements occur around announcements of investments by a strategic partner or investment bank. That creates an average stock price change of about 8.5%. The last one is an earnings announcement, which moves prices almost 6% on average.

TER: Is the percentage of movement similar for small- and large-cap energy equities?

JA: Generally, the larger a company is, the less it will move. Percentagewise, stock prices move a lot more for those under $500 million ($500M) than for those over $500M. And the ones over $5 billion ($5B) won’t move very much.

TER: It will cost almost $60B to clean up the site of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. Do you think news of that will push uranium equities prices even lower?

JA: Japan’s election of a new prime minister, who is a known proponent of nuclear energy and has plans to accelerate the startup of currently offline nuclear reactors, is positive news for the uranium industry. The amount of money it will take to clean up the Fukushima site is a negative, but we’ve had a shortage in the uranium supply, and there’s a rising demand for it. Weighing those factors, I think uranium is poised for an upswing. But companies that can keep their costs lower will be able to operate in all types of market environments.

TER: Do you see any catalysts in the uranium space beyond the election of the Japanese prime minister?

JA: In terms of specific companies, Uranium Energy Corp. (UEC:NYSE.MKT) has the Goliad project in Texas, which it expects to bring on-line soon, probably in August.

TER: That will add roughly 30 thousand pounds to its annual production?

JA: Yes, and its cash costs are estimated to be at $18/pound, which is good.

Lost Creek in Wyoming, which is Ur-Energy Inc.’s (URE:TSX; URG:NYSE.MKT) project, is expected to come on-line soon and to add 1 million pounds per year at its peak. The operation underwent its pre-operation inspection in June as required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

TER: What small-cap oil companies have near-term catalysts?

JA: Ivanhoe Energy Inc. (IE:TSX; IVAN:NASDAQ) and its Tamarack oil sands project. A permit approval decision and field-testing results should happen within the current quarter.

TER: Ivanhoe recently put out a release saying that one of the First Nations in that area, the Mikisew Cree First Nation, wouldn’t object to the project’s development. Is an announcement like that a significant catalyst or just a nonfactor?

JA: It’s definitely a factor. We generally add that information to our coverage of the specific permitting catalyst. This project has been delayed significantly; the original date range was H2/12. Now it has successfully negotiated letters of nonobjection from four of the seven stakeholders who previously filed statements of concern, and it’s trying to resolve the final three statements of concern.

TER: Ivanhoe’s Tamarack is a heavy oil play north of Fort McMurray in Alberta, Canada, but a lot of investors have gotten out of the heavy oil sands plays. Would a catalyst for Ivanhoe have had more impact a few years ago than now?

JA: A couple of years ago, when the price of oil was higher, it would have had a larger impact. Investors have gotten out of the heavy oil plays because it costs more to get that heavy oil out of the ground than to get some of the lighter oil out.

TER: Would the approval of the Keystone XL pipeline be a big catalyst for Canadian energy plays?

JA: Obviously, you need some way to distribute the oil. Having more distribution options and another way to get the oil from Canada to the United States will help companies lower their costs.

TER: What small-cap gas names have some near-term catalysts?

JA: FX Energy Inc. (FXEN:NASDAQ) can have large-moving catalysts, whether positive or negative. FX had a positive catalyst in May. Good news on production tests at the Tuchola-3K well put it up almost 19%. A negative catalyst in July, some test results for Plawce, sent the stock down 15.5%. There were basically noncommercial levels of gas.

We’re looking for more drill-test results in the Fences area, where these are located, including those for the Lisewo-2 and Szymanowice-1 wells. We’re also looking for results this quarter from a couple of its wells in Poland.

TER: What other companies in the energy space with either near- or medium-term catalysts would you like to share with us?

JA: We have a couple of catalysts for projects in the North Sea. We have one for Endeavour International Corp. (END:NYSE.MKT) for the West Rochelle project. Its partners are Nexen Inc. (NXY:TSX; NXY:NYSE) and Premier Oil Plc (PMO:LSE). It had some problems with the Rochelle project; a big storm in February did some major damage to the first well, which was the East Rochelle well. Now, it’s working on West Rochelle. We expect a production-start catalyst this quarter for West Rochelle.

We expect Sterling Resources Ltd. (SLG:TSX.V) to have a production start for phase two of its Breagh gas project, also in the North Sea, in August.

TER: What other tips regarding catalysts for energy companies do you have for investors?

JA: You should continue to watch uranium and keep an eye on what’s going on with it in Japan and the United States. Keep an eye on the reactors in Japan and the projects coming on-line in the United States.

TER: You mentioned Anadarko and Noble Energy as being big companies with near-term catalysts. Any others?

JA: We’re obviously still looking for information on Davy Jones, which is a project of McMoRan Exploration Co. (MMR:NYSE) andEnergy XXI (EXXI:NASDAQ). It’s in ultradeep water in the Gulf of Mexico. We’re waiting for some flow-test results, which could happen as close as August, definitely by the end of the year.

TER: Would that be a production decision?

JA: It’s more a testing-result decision. It was so close to production and then had that blowout last year. At this point, we’re looking for information as to whether it can proceed. The flow-test results will be a deciding factor. It’s an interesting project because no other companies have tried to go that deep in the Gulf of Mexico; it has pretty big implications for that type of drilling.

TER: Leave us with one great piece of insight into this space.

JA: If you’re interested in long-term investment opportunities and long-term growth, look at some of the larger-cap companies because their share prices aren’t as volatile. But if you want to make more money in the short term or pursue short-term opportunities, some of the smaller-cap companies are doing good things and have upcoming opportunities for making money on short-term catalysts.

Jocelyn August is currently the senior analyst and product manager for CatalystTracker, a proprietary research product focused on identifying and analyzing the future events that will materially impact publicly traded companies. In her five years at Sagient, she has developed expertise in the highly event-driven medical device and diagnostic sector. In addition, she spearheaded the development of a new Natural Resource Industry product within the CatalystTracker product line with the publication of the “Catalyst Impact Study: Natural Resources Sector.” Outside of Sagient, August was named the director of communications for the San Diego Professional Chapter of MBA Women International. August received a master of business administration from the Rady School of Management at University of California, San Diego, and graduated cum laude from the University of California, San Diego, with a bachelor of arts degree in sociology.

Want to read more Energy Report interviews like this? Sign up for our free e-newsletter, and you’ll learn when new articles have been published. To see a list of recent interviews with industry analysts and commentators, visit our Interviews page.

DISCLOSURE: 
1) Brian Sylvester conducted this interview for The Energy Reportand provides services to The Energy Report as an independent contractor. He or his family own shares of the following companies mentioned in this interview: None.
2) The following companies mentioned in the interview are sponsors of The Energy Report: FX Energy Inc. and Energy XXI. Streetwise Reports does not accept stock in exchange for its services or as sponsorship payment.
3) Jocelyn August: I or my family own shares of the following companies mentioned in this interview: None. I personally am or my family is paid by the following companies mentioned in this interview: None. My company has a financial relationship with the following companies mentioned in this interview: None. I was not paid by Streetwise Reports for participating in this interview. Comments and opinions expressed are my own comments and opinions. I had the opportunity to review the interview for accuracy as of the date of the interview and am responsible for the content of the interview. 
4) Interviews are edited for clarity. Streetwise Reports does not make editorial comments or change experts’ statements without their consent. 
5) The interview does not constitute investment advice. Each reader is encouraged to consult with his or her individual financial professional and any action a reader takes as a result of information presented here is his or her own responsibility. By opening this page, each reader accepts and agrees to Streetwise Reports’ terms of use and full legal disclaimer. 
6) From time to time, Streetwise Reports LLC and its directors, officers, employees or members of their families, as well as persons interviewed for articles and interviews on the site, may have a long or short position in securities mentioned and may make purchases and/or sales of those securities in the open market or otherwise.