WTI Crude

Loading...

Brent Crude

Loading...

Natural Gas

Loading...

Gasoline

Loading...

Heating Oil

Loading...

Rotate device for more commodity prices

Time Bomb In Oil Markets: Goldman Sachs Issues Warning

GS

While energy traders remain focused on weekly changes in crude supply and demand, manifesting in shifts in inventory of which yesterday’s API data and today’s EIA data was a breathtaking example, a much more troubling data point was revealed by the Energy Information Administration last week when it reported implied gasoline demand.

To be sure, surging gasoline supply and inventories are hardly surprising or new: they remain a byproduct of the unprecedented global crude inventories leftover from two years of failed OPEC policy which resulted in a historic glut. Last January, overall crude runs were up 500,000 bpd as refiners shifted away from diesel and other products to gasoline to chase more attractive margins amid a mild winter and sluggish diesel demand. The move led to an overbuild of gasoline stocks that lingered into the summer, punishing margins when they should have been at their strongest. This January, crude runs are at historic levels, up by roughly 300,000 bpd over last year.

So yes, both gasoline stocks and supply remain at extremely high levels, but what set off alarm bells is not supply, but demand: the EIA last week reported that the 4-week average of gasoline supplied - or implied gasoline demand - in the United States was 8.2 million barrels per day, the lowest since February 2012. And, as Reuters adds, U.S. refiners are now facing the prospects of weakening gasoline demand for the first time in five years.

(Click to enlarge)

Unlike excess supply, which may have numerous factors, when it comes to a plunge in end product demand there can only be one implication: the U.S. consumer is very ill, especially when considering that gasoline use has grown every year since 2012, despite fears that demand has topped out amid the growth of fuel efficient cars, urbanization and a graying population.

Upon learning the data, the industry's immediate concern was about refiners and what it means for already sagging margins: U.S. gasoline demand is closely watched by traders as it accounts for roughly 10 percent of global consumption. U.S. refiners amassed large inventories that punished margins last year, but record gasoline demand and robust exports helped provided a firewall against further slippage. Now the industry faces the prospects of higher crude prices following global production cuts and fresh federal data that suggests their gasoline demand safety net may be eroding.

It’s tough to base conclusions solely on the weekly data, which can be off significantly," said Mark Broadbent, a refinery analyst with Wood Mackenzie. "If the demand is low as the data shows, then it’s going to be real problem for refiners.”

But it could be a far bigger problem in what it means for the broader economy.

Enter Goldman, which cuts right to the point: "A 6 percent fall in U.S. demand would require a U.S. recession"

As Goldman analyst Damien Courvalin notes, "implied demand data points to U.S. gasoline demand in January declining 460 kb/d or 5.2 percent year-on-year. In the absence of a base effect, such a decline has only occurred in four periods since 1960 during which time PCE contracted."

(Click to enlarge)  Related: Expensive Middle East Crude Could Lose Market Share To U.S. Shale

Goldman then adds that "to achieve the 5.9 percent decline suggested by the weekly data, our model requires PCE to contract 6 percent, in other words, a recession."

(Click to enlarge)

So is the gasoline demand data accurate, and is a recession quietly gripping over the U.S., even as most other indicators are calmly flashing green?

Here Goldman refuses to believe the official data, instead reverting to its own model, which "adjusts" the data, to goal-seek the decline to appear more manageable.

Given that the December PCE printed 2.8 percent growth, in line with its performance throughout 2016, we find such a sudden collapse unlikely... our revised model for gasoline demand, which regresses year-on-year change in demand on analogous growth in PCE, pump prices, efficiency, number of public holidays and base effect, points to a 30 kb/d or 0.3 percent decline. Alternatively, given our economists' forecast for PCE to grow 2.6 percent in 1Q17, such a decline would require a year-on-year efficiency gain of almost 20 percent vs. the maximum historical gain of 8 percent. Finally, the potential reduction in demand on account of the Presidential Inauguration on 20 January is offset by one less weekend day vs. the same period in January 2016.

Goldman then calculates what it believes is the accurate collapse in implied gasoline demand, instead of the 460k b/d reported by the EIA:

Our analysis identifies weekly yield and exports as systematically deviating from their final values and such biases suggest that demand could be revised higher by 190 kb/d. The EIA's real-time export data still includes estimates and we see potential for the recent shifts in the Mexican gasoline market to exacerbate the overstatement of U.S. exports by an additional 185 kb/d given lower PEMEX refinery turnarounds, and seasonally lower demand exacerbated by the January 16 percent hike in prices. Adjusting for these lower exports points to U.S. gasoline demand declining only 85 kb/d year on year in January, in line with our macro model.

Next, Goldman pulls the oldest trick in the book and suggests that it is not implied demand that is plunging, but supply that is soaring and is simply not being captured by the government:

We view the larger than seasonal year to date builds in U.S. gasoline stocks as driven by transient supply factors rather than persistent demand issues. In the case of Mexico, we expect that at current set prices, gasoline demand will decline by 25 kb/d year on year in 2017, with demand falling by 75 kb/d if prices gradually reached global prices this year. Related: It’s Time For Big Oil To Embrace The Digital Age

In conclusion, Goldman chooses to ignore the data, and to base its conclusion on its own fudged data:

Looking forward, we reiterate our outlook for strong global demand growth in 2017 and view the recent U.S. gasoline builds as reflective of transient regional shifts in gasoline supply instead. Given our outlook for strong consumer spending in 2017, we believe that U.S. gasoline demand growth will remain resilient this year at 60 kb/d, albeit below last year's 150 kb/d growth because of higher prices. From a global perspective, these declines remain modest, especially compared to the 510 kb/d 2016 demand growth from the 40 countries we track.

So is Goldman right implying the EIA gasoline demand data is wrong, or is Goldman once again incorrect - as it has so frequently been over the past year - which would mean that, as the bank itself admits, the U.S. consumer, and economy, are in the throes of a deep recession? We hope to get a partial answer tomorrow, when the DOE reports the latest weekly inventory data.

By Zerohedge

More Top Reads For Oilprice.com:




Back to homepage


Leave a comment
  • EH on February 08 2017 said:
    Goldman Sachs WHO,, in what game and what quarter?
  • GET on February 08 2017 said:
    Zerohedge sure quotes Goldman Studies a lot for an organization that claims to hate them.
  • david on February 10 2017 said:
    Lets see Goldman predicted $200.00 per bbl and recently oil was going to $10.00. Prices are sure to rise if Goldman is expecting a price drop...
  • Detrimental Reliance on February 11 2017 said:
    "Enter Goldman, which cuts right to the point: 'A 6 percent fall in U.S. demand would require a U.S. recession' "

    Goldman rhetoric attempting to condition our thinking that we will face a recession under the new administration? Not only are their words untrustworthy, they are politically motivated.
  • DetailsGuy on February 11 2017 said:
    EIA methodology to calculate exports changed late 2016. They stopped using 2 month delayed export data and started weekly export data from customs. This affected the product supplied numbers. The numbers will fall in place mid - late Feb.

    This year the demand may pick up more than most years because butane prices spiked and blenders will stop using it leading to more gasoline consumption.
  • Thomas Brown on February 14 2017 said:
    What an odd conclusion. It doesn't take into account electric vehicles, folks using more bicycles and scooters, and more people living in mixed residential/business communities where they can do a lot on foot. I'm on the board of a community association looking at a proposed mixed-use development... they have talked about building somewhat fewer parking spaces than they once would have, because "people just aren't using cars as much as they used to."
  • Keith Salvatore on February 14 2017 said:
    When iron ore was trading in the 50's historical low, ZERO HEDGE, wrote an article suggesting Fortesque metals was going bust, and hardly bullet proof as it claimed at $56 spot. Anyone who dumped that stock, at that point, missed out on triple digit annualized gains. Before chiding Goldman, ZH might want to analyze some of their off the mark predictions.
  • Kevin Talmadge on February 23 2017 said:
    Maybe if you didn't start the chart in 2012 we could see the real picture?
  • Jim Johnson on March 06 2017 said:
    A warming climate has reduced the demand for heating oil worldwide.

Leave a comment




Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News