发帖
雷达卡
| 研究机构：德意志银行 分析师： Paul S ... 撰写日期：2010年12月22日 | 字体[ 大 中 小 ] |
[url=]阅读全文：[/url] 59页 | 1172KB
We've argued since early '08 that the oil age is ending owing to the concentrationof remaining reserves into government hands, & an attendant under-investmentcycle. Our focus: no supply growth + demand growth = price spikes until demandgrowth = 0. In this note we review 2010 vs our late 2009 thesis and focus on keychanges. The fact that 2010 demand growth (+2.2mb/d) will likely be the secondfastest for 30 years raises a red flag, especially as we work through OPEC sparecapacity - prices will be spiking by 2012 if demand continues to grow at this rate.
What were the main developments over 2010? In this note we run through thedemand and supply side highlights, compared to our view a year ago, and lookforward with a refreshed view. Demand side, we highlight the surprising demandstrength of 2010, despite $80/bbl average and rising prices, and focus on themajor long term drivers: US cars, Chinese cars, and Middle Eastern demand. Thebattle is between US efficiency growth and GDP/population-driven emergingmarket growth. The shift from gasoline to diesel in the mix is a major theme.
On the supply side, clearly Macondo was the biggest issue on the bull side for oilprices, with Iraq the obvious offset. Deepwater Gulf of Mexico will never resumeits previous activity levels. We are confident of Iraqi growth, but history says weshouldn’t be. Mexico has also surprised with lower declines and an opening toinvestment. Canada continues to do well. Global NGL growth is a major themethat is extremely hard to pin down – Eagle Ford liquids growth is hard to count.
We intend to write a further note examining “corporate strategy at the end of theoil age”. Quite obviously, the shift is from oil age to gas age for the major oils.
E&Ps are being forced to integrate downstream as a function of excess supply.
With CO2 legislation the next step would be into electricity generation, but thisnow seems unlikely unless a major global warming crisis forces an attitude changein Washington. We are concerned on potential tax increases. The challenge for oilsis that they can only generate more growth at lower returns. Interestingly, themarket appears to price this negatively already for the big oils, and payaggressively for leverage based on a bullish oil bearish natgas view. We favourrestructuring plays such as ConocoPhillips (PT $66) that are shrinking and returningcash, or those that can potentially find oil such as Murphy (PT $72), with majorexploration news due. We value oil stocks based on top-down P/E methodology,and bottom-up NAVs. Risks include stronger/weaker-than-expected oil prices,exploration successes/failures, & deepwater permitting delays. See p.55-56.
京公网安备 11010802022788号
