ニッケル

Supply and demand shocks in markets critical to the renewable-energy and defense industries will continue to play havoc with prices, which will negatively impact capex. In the short run, this benefits China given its already-dominant position in these markets. Longer term, investors already are providing capital for long-term projects needed for the energy transition. We remain long the XME ETF, given its low exposure to lithium and nickel holdings.

特別レポート

Indonesia will not revert to dictatorship. Yet the guardrails against authoritarianism are also constraining the actions of the next government in tackling near term domestic and regional challenges. For long-term positioning, use potential selloff from a “dictatorship scare” to build position as structural outlook for Indonesia is positive due to the China-West divorce and the global energy transition.

特別レポート

Executive Summary Tight Inventories Spike Metals Russia's war against Ukraine is a watershed moment, which will realign production, distribution and consumption of commodities globally. The development of new sources of the critical metals desperately needed to build out renewable energy grids and the drive to secure access to oil, gas and coal will intensify along political lines. China, reinforced by Russia, will lead the East, while the US and its allies will lead the West, in a redux of the Cold War. Local politics will intrude on this process, as left-of-center governments in important commodity-producing states secure their electoral victories and claim greater shares of commodity revenues. The rebuilding of defense systems, particularly in Europe, will compete with the renewable-energy transition. This will stress already-tight metals markets, where low inventories will predispose markets to higher volatility a la this week's oil, natgas and nickel price spikes. This will retard economic growth. In the short term, CO2 emissions will surge. Longer term, the transition to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 will be pushed back years, as states compete for access to commodities. East-West trade restrictions and hoarding of commodities secured via trade within these respective blocs, as is occurring presently, will increase. Bottom Line: Russia's war against Ukraine is a watershed moment.  The development of new sources of the critical metals desperately needed to build out renewable energy grids, and the drive to secure access to oil, gas and coal will intensify. China, reinforced by Russia, will lead the East, while the US and its allies will lead the West, in a redux of the Cold War. Feature Russia's war with Ukraine provoked a watershed moment for Europe: Leaders suddenly realized they had to reverse decades of energy dependence on Russia, rebuild their militaries, and sustain a massive buildout of the continent's renewable-energy generation and grid. This occurred as inventories of the basic commodities required to achieve all of these objectives were stretched so tight that the mere threat of the cutoff of pipeline natural gas was enough to send benchmark EU natgas prices to a record $113/MMBtu, up nearly 80% from the previous day's close before it settled back to still-elevated levels (Chart 1). Oil inventories also were stretched extremely thin even before Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine 24 February (Chart 2). The situation is not improving, since, in the wake of the Ukraine war, numerous refiners and trading companies now are observing self-imposed sanctions against taking any Russian oil or refined products. It is worthwhile remembering this began before the US and UK announced they would ban all imports of Russian material this week.1 This will stretch supply chains by unknow durations – the movement of crude from Russia to a refiner could take months instead of weeks, until new trade patterns are established. Chart 1Little Flex In EU Gas Inventories Chart 2Little Flex In EU Gas Inventories   Global economic and policy uncertainty is massively elevated, with percent changes in oil and gas prices swinging on a double-digit basis daily. This makes it extremely difficult to bid or offer oil cargoes in the physical market or make markets (i.e., bid or offer) in the futures markets, which has the effect of compounding uncertainty and volatility. Fundamentals – supply, demand and inventories – take a back seat to fear and uncertainty in such markets. This makes it virtually impossible to assign a probability to any price outcomes based on supply and demand – the true definition of uncertainty in the Frank Knight sense – and to make long-term capex decisions over the long term.2 We raised our 2022 and 2023 Brent forecasts on the back of the massive uncertainty in the markets to $90/bbl and $85/bbl, respectively, right after Russia's invasion of Ukraine. We assume 1Q22 Brent will average $100/bbl. We expect core OPEC 2.0 producers – Saudi Arabia, UAE and Kuwait – will increase production beginning in 2Q22; US shale-oil output will rise, and ~ 1.2mm b/d of Iranian production will return to market in 2H22. Among the risks to our forecasts are a failure by core OPEC 2.0 to lift output (we expect an announcement at the end of this month when the producer coalition meets); lower-than-expected US shale output, and a failure to resolve the Iran nuclear deal with the US. Our modeling indicated these outcomes could lift Brent to between $120/bbl and $140/bbl by 2023 (Chart 3). We will be updating our forecasts next week.3 Chart 3Brent Forwards Lift EU's Watershed Metals Moment EU leadership is setting out to reverse decades of energy dependence on Russia, rebuild their militaries, and sustain a massive buildout of the continent's renewable-energy grid, all a result of the Ukraine war. This will require massive investment in metals mining and refining, along with steel-making capacity. Already, Germany is pledging to increase LNG import capacity and measures to reduce its dependence on Russian natural gas by 75% this year.4 The EU is looking to restore its natgas inventories to 90% of capacity before next winter, and has pledged to double down on renewables, in order to remove member-state dependence on Russian energy exports.5 These ambitious goals are up against the hard reality of scarce base metals supply globally. This will be exacerbated going forward by actions taken by and against Russia. The Russia-Ukraine crisis will destabilize metal markets, given supply uncertainty from Russia and its contribution to global supply. The commodities heavyweight constitutes 6%, 5% and 4% of global primary aluminum, refined nickel and copper production. Against the backdrop of very low global inventories in these metals (Chart 4), the prices of all three hit record highs over the last few days due to uncertain supply (Chart 5). LME nickel prices more than quadrupled on Tuesday as traders rushed to cover short positions and margin calls. Chart 4Low Inventories... Chart 5...Lead To Price Volatility Uncertainty has engulfed metal markets, with a Western ban on Russian metal imports still a possibility. Putin’s announcement regarding raw material export restrictions will further fuel supply uncertainty.6 As in the case of oil, private entities’ self-sanctioning, sanctions on the Russian financial system, and war-related supply chain disruptions are causing current Russian metal export disruptions.7 So far, Western sanctions on commodities have not directly interfered with metal flows from Russia. But markets are taking it day to day. Supply disruptions and sanctions force the formation of new trade patterns, as private entities aim to maximize arbitrage opportunities. For example, high European aluminum price spreads incentivized shipments from China, the world’s largest producer and consumer of refined aluminum. Normally, Europe relies on Russia for aluminum supplies. Rising European physical premiums for delivered metal, caused by Russian export disruptions, will see trading companies take advantage of arbitrage opportunities in other commodities as well. Europe's Risk Profile Rising Since the Ukraine war began, rising European physical premiums in commodities ranging from metals to natgas indicate the continent – more so than others – is particularly vulnerable to Russian export disruptions. Europe’s reliance on Russian energy and its supply disruptions will raise operating costs for smelters and refiners on the continent, threatening smelter shutdowns similar to those we saw this past winter. Markets were expecting power price relief over the warmer months and higher smelting activity. Elevated fuel and power prices, however, will constrain metals refining in Europe, and could shut or close even more smelters, keeping refined metals supply scarce and prices high. Rebuilding Europe's Defenses EU leaders are scheduled to take up a new energy and defense funding proposal today, which media reports are describing as "massive" (no detail provided ahead of the meeting, of course). This program reportedly will be akin to the EU's $2 trillion COVID-relief fund.8 The EU's fast response to defense shortfalls comes against the backdrop discussed above regarding super-tight metals markets, which now face a further complication of unpredictable local politics in metals-producing states. Some of these states have voted left-of-center governments into office, which now appear to be intent on nationalizing mining operations.9 Chile, e.g., accounts for ~ 30% of global copper ore output, and is in the process of re-writing its constitution, which will change tax and royalty law, and could pave the way for nationalization of copper and lithium mines. This political risk compounds any long-term planning operations by consumers like the EU and producers. Investment Implications Energy markets – broadly defined to include oil, gas and coal along with the base metals required for renewables and their supporting grids and electric vehicles – are being rocked by Russia's war with Ukraine. Base metals, in particular, will have to find price levels that destroy demand among competing uses, if the EU's dual-track plan to build out its renewables generation and restore a military capability is approved. A "massive" funding effort in Europe, coupled with equally massive efforts in the US and China – both intent on building out their renewable generation and grids, as well as expanding their defensive capabilities – will be extremely difficult to pull off. Critical base metals inventories remain low, and prices are high because demand exceeds supply for the foreseeable future (Chart 6). Chart 6Tight Inventories Spike Metals The EU will join a world in which the other two great economic centers – the US and China – will engage in a geopolitical competition over access to and control of scarce base metals, oil, gas and coal resources. Russia will remain aggressive toward the West, at least until the Putin regime falls, and will play an ancillary role to China. Fossil fuels and base metals have been starved for capex for more than a decade. Governmental pronouncements will not reverse this. These markets will remain tight, and will get tighter in order to allocate increasingly scarce supply with rapidly growing demand. As such, we remain long commodity-index exposure (S&P GSCI and the COMT ETF), along with equity exposure to oil and gas producers via the XOP ETF, and the XME and PICK ETFs to retain exposure to base metals and bulks producers and traders.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1     Please see Russian tankers at sea despite ‘big unknown’ over who will buy oil, published by ft.com on March 7, 2022. 2     Please see Explained: Knightian uncertainty, published by mit.edu for discussion. 3    Please see Oil Risk Premium Abates, But Still Remains, which we published on February 25, 2022. 4    Please see Germany Revives LNG Import Plans to Cut Reliance on Russian Natural Gas in Marked Policy Shift, published by naturalgasintel.com on March 1, 2022. 5    Please see Climate change: EU unveils plan to end reliance on Russian gas, published by bbc.co.uk on March 8, 2022, and The EU plan to drastically ramp renewables to replace Russian gas, published by pv-magazine.com on March 9, 2022. 6    Please see Russia to Omit Raw Material Exports but Omits Details, published by Bloomberg on March 9, 2022. 7     Please see here for Which companies have stopped doing business with Russia? 8    Please see Ukraine: ECB governing council to meet as crisis intensifies, published on March 8, 2022 by greencentralbanking.com. 9    Please see Chile a step closer to nationalizing copper and lithium, published by mining.com on March 7, 2022, and Add Local Politics To Copper Supply Risks, which we published on November 25, 2021.   Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations

Executive Summary Euro Natgas Soars; LME Nickel Squeezed Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak's threat to halt shipmentsof natgas on Nord Stream 1 to Europe lifted European gas prices 25% overnight, and will reverberate for years. We make the odds of a cut-off of Russian natgas exports to the EU low but not extremely low. Russia’s war is about the status of Ukraine. Russia needs the EU markets, and the EU needs Russia's gas. However, if Russia follows through on Novak's threat, it would be a major disruption for gas markets in the short term. Over the medium to long term, US shale gas producers, LNG terminal operators and exporters will benefit from new demand. On the import side, China likely benefits most from Russia's need to re-route gas. But this will require substantial infrastructure investment to monetize Russia's gas supplies and as such will take years to realize. Separately, the LME has shut down its nickel markets following an explosive 250% rally over two days that took prices above $100,000/MT. Nickel settled at ~ $80,000/MT before the LME closed the market today for margin calls on shorts squeezed by the surge in prices to make margin calls. Bottom Line: We remain long commodity-index exposure (S&P GSCI and the COMT ETF), along with equity exposure to oil and gas producers via the XOP ETF. We also remain long the XME and PICK ETFs to retain exposure to base metals and bulks.

Highlights The faster-than-expected oil-demand recovery from the COVID-19 omicron variant points to higher EM trade volumes this year and next, which, along with a weaker USD, will boost base-metals demand and prices (Chart of the Week). The recovery in iron-ore prices on the back of China stimulus and omicron-induced labor shortages at miners will lift copper prices, the base-metals' bellwether.  Supply-demand balances in refined copper showed a physical deficit of 438K MT for the January-October 2021 period, indicating the market extended its years-long deficit in 2021. Despite the IMF's mark-down in global growth due to slowdowns in the US and China this year, metals demand will continue to exceed supply, which will support prices. Short squeezes – most recently in nickel, following a headline-grabbing copper squeeze in October – will keep base metals' inventories under pressure and forward curves backwardated. We remain long the S&P GSCI and the COMT ETF, as well as the PICK ETF, to remain exposed to backwardation.  At tonight's close, we are getting long the SPDR S&P Metals and Mining ETF (XME) ETF, following its recent sell-off. We are raising our 2022 copper target to $5.00/lb on COMEX, and keeping our 2023 expectation at $6.00/lb. Feature Inadequate development in new base metals supply, which has been apparent for years, means economic recovery and expansion will continue to tax existing supplies over the short run (to end-2023).1  Chart of the WeekExpected Global Trade Pick-Up Will Boost Base Metals Demand Chart 2Physical Deficits Will Persists In Copper... At a global level, prolonged supply-demand imbalances mean inventories will continue to be drawn hard to cover for prompt supply shortfalls.  This can be seen in the principal base metals we cover: copper (Chart 2), aluminum (Chart 3), nickel (Chart 4), and zinc (Chart 5).  As a result, short squeezes in base metals markets will continue to grab headlines, as persistent physical deficits periodically drain inventories.2   Longer term, the global effort to decarbonize energy supply could be stretched out well beyond 2050, when most policymakers assume the task of replacing fossil-fuel energy sources will largely be completed.  The longer it takes to mobilize capex, the more expensive the energy transition becomes, as markets are continually forced to adjust to short-term shortages leading to price spikes and squeezes in an effort to meet demand. Chart 3...Aluminum... Chart 4...Nickel... Chart 5...And Zinc. Faster Demand Recovery In Metals Faster-than-expected oil-demand recovery will translate to higher trade volumes globally this year and next.  This is particularly important for EM markets, given oil and metals prices – particularly copper, the base metals bellwether – share a common long-term equilibrium (i.e., they're cointegrated, as seen in the Chart of the Week).3 A pick-up in EM trade volumes, along with a weakening USD this year, will help lift copper prices.  Most trade is in manufactured goods, which will translate into a pick-up in cyclical stocks vs. defensive stocks as well, which also is supportive of copper prices (Chart 6). Copper prices also will be supported by the recovery in iron-ore prices, which have been bid up on the back of increasing stimulus in China and global growth ex-China, as well as omicron-induced labor shortages among miners.  As is typical, copper demand will follow in the wake of steel demand, as construction and infrastructure projects are finished off (i.e., plumbing and wiring are installed) (Chart 7). Chart 6Global Trade Recovery Will Boost Copper Chart 7Iron Ore Rally Will Boost Copper Supply Side Remains Challenged Impressive gains put up on the supply side last year in Indonesia – which, according to the International Copper Study Group, posted a 51% increase in copper output at the Grasberg mine over the first 10 months of 2021, – and other smaller producers notwithstanding, geopolitical uncertainty continues to dominate the supply-side risks to base metals generally, copper in particular.4 Economic and political uncertainty in Chile and Peru, which account for 30% and 10% of global copper output, respectively, will continue to keep miners hesitant in their capex allocations, in our view.  Both states have elected left-of-center governments, which still are working through how they will deliver on their election mandates, including revenue re-distribution, taxation and royalties.5 The combination of stronger demand and tepid supply growth will keep base metals inventories under pressure, which will translate into continued backwardation.  This is particularly apparent in the copper (Chart 8) and nickel (Chart 9).  Both of these squeezes resulted from buyers treating the London Metal Exchange as a supplier of last resort – which is an extremely rare occurrence in futures markets – and both required the intervention of the London Metal Exchange to address.6 Chart 8Copper Backwardation Will Persist Chart 9...As Will Nickels Investment Implications Base metals markets will continue to find it difficult to match supply with demand, as they have for the past several years.  This further compounds the global energy transition – largely because the suppliers of the metals needed to pull it off are starting from a deep physical deficit position – and likely delays it considerably. In an environment in which obstacles to developing the supply needed to phase out fossil fuels in favor of renewable generation continue to mount, we remain long commodity index exposure – the S&P GSCI and COMT ETF – and favor exposure to miners and trading companies that are responsible for moving metals around the globe. At tonight's close, we are getting long the SPDR S&P Metals and Mining ETF (XME) ETF, following its recent sell-off of 10% for its highs of $47/share.  Our view on base metals is they are a long-term value play, in which miners and the supply side generally, will benefit from the high prices needed to develop the supply the energy transition will require.  The big risk here is these companies once again lose the plot and fail to control costs to produce at the expense of the health of their margins.  If we see this, we will exit the position.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com Paula Struk Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy paula.struk@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish We expect OPEC 2.0 to announce they'll continue with the return of another 400k b/d at next week's monthly meeting.  In reality, the producer coalition most likely will fail to return these volumes to market and will fall short of the mark again.  The real news markets are waiting for is whether the four states capable of increasing supply and sustaining higher output – Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the UAE and Kuwait – will step up to cover the growing gap between volumes that were pledged and what's actually been delivered.  The coalition agreed in July 2021 to begin returning some of the 5.8mm b/d of output pulled from the market during the COVID-19 pandemic starting in August 2021.  To date, the producer group has fallen short by about 800k b/d, based on the IEA's January 2022 estimates. Failure to increase production by the four core OPEC 2.0 states could keep prices above $90/bbl this year and next (Chart 10). Base Metals: Bullish Iron ore prices have rallied ~ 14% since the start of this year, as markets expect China to ease steel production cuts in 2022 and loosen monetary policy.  Last week, the People’s Bank of China (PBoC) cut its policy interest rate for the first time in nearly two years.  Markets expect more stimulus and policy easing in China as the central bank and government attempt to stimulate an economy mired by COVID-19 lockdowns, a property market slump and high energy prices.  Higher stimulus implies more commodity refining and manufacturing activity, including steel production, which will lead to higher iron ore demand. Precious Metals: Bullish In line with market expectations, the Federal Reserve signaled an initial rate hike in March, in its January Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting. While nominal interest rates will rise, the Fed will remain behind the inflation curve. The US CPI reading for December showed that inflation was 7% higher year-on-year, the highest annual increase in inflation since 1982 (Chart 11). High inflation and the Fed’s slow start to raise nominal interest rates will keep real rates, the opportunity cost of holding gold, low. Chart 10 Chart 11     Footnotes 1     Please see 2022 Key Views: Past As Prelude For Commodities, published on December 16, 2021 for additional discussion. 2     Please see Column: Nickel gripped by ferocious squeeze as stocks disappear: Andy Home, published by reuters.com on January 20, 2022; and LME copper spreads backwardated amid stock squeeze, published by argusmedia.com on October 20, 2021. 3    This was flagged most recently in the IEA's January 2022 Oil Market Report, which noted, "While the number of Omicron cases is surging worldwide, oil demand defied expectations in 4Q21, rising by 1.1 mb/d to 99 mb/d. In 1Q22, demand is set for a seasonal decline, exacerbated by more teleworking and less air travel. We have raised our global demand estimates by 200 kb/d for 2021 and 2022 – resulting in growth of 5.5 mb/d and 3.3 mb/d, respectively – due to softer Covid restrictions."  Please see Higher Output Needed To Constrain Oil Prices for our latest oil balances and price forecasts.  We published this report last week. 4    Please see International Copper Study Group press release of January 2022. 5    Please see Add Local Politics To Copper Supply Risks, which we published on November 25, 2021, for a discussion of these risks. 6    Please see Footnote 2 above.     Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Trades Closed In 2021

Highlights In the short term, the US stock market price will track the 30-year T-bond price, with every 10 bps move in the yield moving the stock market and bond price by 2.5 percent. We think that the bond market will not allow the stock market to suffer a peak-to-trough decline of more than 15-20 percent. Given that the drawdown is already 10 percent, it equates to no more than 20-40 bps of upside for the 30-year T-bond yield, to a level of 2.3-2.5 percent. Hence, we are quite close to an entry-point for both stocks and long-duration bonds. In the next few years, the structural bull market will continue, ending only at the ultimate low in the 30-year bond yield. But on a 5-year horizon, the blockchain will be the undoing of the US stock market – by undermining the vast profits that the US tech behemoths make from owning, controlling, and manipulating our data and the digital content that we create. In that sense, the blockchain will ultimately reveal – and pop – a ‘super bubble’. Fractal trading watchlist: We add Korea and CAD/SEK, and update bitcoin, biotech, and nickel versus silver. Feature Chart of the WeekIf The Market Is Not Far From Its Fundamentals, Can This Really Be A 'Super Bubble'? Why has the stock market started 2022 on such a poor footing? Chart I-2 and Chart I-3 identify the main culprit. Through the past year, the tech-heavy Nasdaq index has been tracking the 30-year T-bond price on a one-for-one basis, while the broader S&P 500 shows a connection that is almost as good. Chart I-2The Nasdaq Has Been Tracking The 30-Year T-Bond Price One-For-One... Chart I-3…The S&P 500 Has Also Been Tracking The 30-Year T-Bond Price Therefore, as the 30-year T-bond price has taken a tumble, so have growth-heavy stock markets. Put simply, the ‘bond component’ of these stock markets has been dominating recent performance, overwhelming the ‘profits component’ which tends to move more glacially. It follows that the short-term direction of the stock market has been set – and will continue to be set – by the direction of the 30-year T-bond price. Stocks And Bonds Are Nearing A ‘Pinch Point’ The next few paragraphs are necessarily technical, but worth absorbing – as they are fundamental to understanding the stock market’s recent sell-off, as well as its future evolution. The duration of any investment quantifies how far into the future its cashflows lie, by averaging those cashflows into one theoretical future ‘lump sum’. For a bond, the duration also equals the percentage change in the bond price for every 1 percent change in its yield.1 Crucially, the duration of the US stock market is the same as that of the 30-year T-bond, at around 25 years. Therefore, if all else were equal, the US stock market price should track the 30-year T-bond price, with every 10 bps move in the yield moving the stock market and bond prices by 2.5 percent. In the long run of course, all else is not equal. The 30-year T-bond generates a fixed income stream, whereas the stock market generates income that tracks profits. Allowing for this difference, the US stock market should track: (The 30-year T-bond price) multiplied by (profits expected in the year ahead) multiplied by (a constant) In which the constant expresses the theoretical lump-sum payment 25 years ahead as a multiple of the profits in the year ahead – and thereby quantifies the expected structural growth in profits. We can ignore this constant if the structural growth in profits does not change. Nevertheless, remember this constant, as we will come back to it later when we discuss a putative ‘super bubble’. The ‘bond component’ of the stock market has been dominating recent performance. This model for the stock market seems simplistic. Yet it provides an excellent explanation for the market’s evolution through the past 40 years (Chart I-4), as well as through the past year in which, to repeat, the bond component has been the dominant driver. Chart I-4The US Stock Market = The 30-Year T-Bond Price Multiplied By Profits In the short term then, given the 25 year duration of the US stock market, every 10 bps rise in the 30-year T-bond yield will drag down the stock market by 2.5 percent. We can also deduce that the sell-off will be self-limiting and self-correcting, because at some ‘pinch point’ the bond market will assess that the deflationary impulse from financial instability will snuff out the recent inflationary impulse in the economy. Where is that pinch point? Our sense is that the bond market will not allow the stock market to suffer a peak-to-trough decline of more than 15-20 percent. Given that the drawdown is already 10 percent, it equates to no more than 20-40 bps of upside for the 30-year T-bond yield, to a level of 2.3-2.5 percent. Hence, we are quite close to an entry-point for both stocks and long-duration bonds. The Case Against A ‘Super Bubble’ (And The Case For) As is typical, the recent market setback has unleashed narratives of an almighty bubble starting to pop. Stealing the headlines is value investor Jeremy Grantham of GMO, who claims that “today in the US we are in the fourth super bubble of the last hundred years.” Is there any merit to Mr. Grantham’s claim? An investment is in a bubble if its price has completely broken free from its fundamentals. For example, in the dot com boom, the stock market did become a super bubble. But as we have just shown, the US stock market today is not that far removed from its fundamental components of the 30-year T-bond price multiplied by profits. At first glance then, Mr. Grantham appears to be wrong (Chart of the Week). Still, if the underlying components – the 30-year T-bond and/or profits – were in a bubble, then the stock market would also be in a bubble. In this regard, isn’t the deeply negative real yield on long-dated bonds a sure sign of a bubble? The answer is, not necessarily. As we explained last week in Time To Get Real About Real Interest Rates, the deeply negative real yield on Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) is premised on an expected rate of inflation that we should take with a huge dose of salt. Putting in a more realistic forward inflation rate, the real yield on long-dated bonds is positive, albeit just. What about profits – are they in a bubble? The US (and world) profit margin stands at an all-time high, around 20 percent greater than its post-GFC average (Chart I-5). But a 20 percent excess is not quite what we mean by a bubble. Chart I-5Profit Margins Are At An All-Time High There is one final way that Mr. Grantham could be right, and for this we must come back to the previously mentioned constant which quantifies the expected long-term growth in profits. If this expected structural growth were to collapse, then the stock market would also collapse. This is precisely what happened to the non-US stock market after the dot com bust, when the expected structural growth – and therefore the structural valuation – phase-shifted sharply lower (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). As a result, the non-US stock market also phase-shifted sharply lower from the previous relationship with its fundamentals (Chart I-8). Could the same ultimately happen to the US stock market? Chart I-6The Structural Growth And Valuation Of Non-US Stocks Phase-Shifted Down... Chart I-7...Could The Same Happen To ##br##US Stocks? Chart I-8Non-US Stocks Phase-Shifted Lower From Their Previous Relationship With Fundamentals The answer is yes – and the main risk comes from the blockchain and its threat to the pseudo-monopoly status that the US tech behemoths have in owning, controlling, manipulating, and monetising our data and the digital content that we create. If the blockchain returned that ownership and control back to us, it would devastate the profits of Facebook, Google, and the other behemoths that dominate the US stock market. If the expected structural growth were to collapse, then the stock market would also collapse. That said, the blockchain is a long-term risk to the stock market, likely to manifest itself on a 5-year horizon. Before we get there, in the next deflationary shock, the 30-year T-bond yield has the scope to decline by at least 150 bps, equating to a 40 percent increase in the ‘bond component’ of the US stock market. To conclude, the structural bull market will end only at the ultimate low in the 30-year bond yield. And then, the blockchain will reveal – and pop – a ‘super bubble’. Fractal Trading Watchlist This week we add Korea and CAD/SEK, and update bitcoin, biotech, and nickel versus silver. Of note, the near 30 percent underperformance of Korea through the past year has reached the point of fractal fragility that has signalled previous major reversals in 2015, 2017 and 2019 (Chart I-9). Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is to go long Korea versus the world (MSCI indexes), setting the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 8 percent.  Chart I-9Korea Is Approaching A Turning Point Versus The World Korea Approaching A Turning Point Versus EM CAD/SEK Could Reverse Bitcoin Near A First Support Level Biotech Approaching A Major Buy Nickel Approaching A Sell Versus Silver Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Defined fully, the duration of an investment is the weighted average of the times of its cashflows, in which the weights are the present values of the cashflows. Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - ##br##Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - ##br##Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - ##br##Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - ##br##Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

特別レポート

Highlights Commodity markets will face growing supply challenges over the next decade as the US and China prepare for war, if only to deter war. Chinese President Xi Jinping's push for greater self-reliance at home and supply chain security abroad is reinforced by the West’s focus on the same interests. The erosion of a single rules-based global trade system increases the odds of economic and even military conflict. The competition for security is precipitating a reforging of global supply chains and a persistent willingness to use punitive measures, which can escalate into boycotts, embargoes, and even blockades (i.e. not only Huawei). The risk of military engagements will rise, particularly along global chokepoints and sea lanes needed to transport vital commodities. Import dependency and supply chain risk are powerful drivers of decarbonization efforts, especially in China. On net, geopolitical trends will keep the balance of commodity-price risks tilted to the upside. Commodity and Energy Strategy remains long commodity index exposure on a strategic basis via the S&P GSCI and the COMT ETF.  Note: Even in the short term, a higher geopolitical risk premium is warranted in oil prices due to US-Iran conflict. Feature The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) under President Xi Jinping has embarked on a drive toward autarky, or economic self-sufficiency, that has enormous implications, especially for global commodities. Beijing believes it can maintain central control, harness technology, enhance its manufacturing prowess, and grow at a reasonable rate, all while bulking up its national security. The challenge is to maintain social stability and supply security through the transition. China lives in desperate fear of the chaos that reigned throughout most of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, which also enabled foreign domination (Chart 1). The problem for the rest of the world is that Chinese nationalism and assertive foreign policy are integral aspects of the new national strategy. They are needed to divert the public from social ills and deter foreign powers that might threaten China’s economy and supply security. Chart 1China Fears Any Risk Of Another ‘Century Of Humiliation’ The chief obstacle for China is the United States, which remains the world leader even though its share of global power and wealth is declining over time. The US is formally adopting a policy of confrontation rather than engagement with China. For example, the Biden administration is co-opting much of the Trump administration's agenda. Infrastructure, industrial policy, trade protectionism, and the “pivot to Asia” are now signature policies of Biden as well as Trump (Table 1).1 Table 1US Strategic Competition Act Highlights Return Of Industrial Policy, Confrontation With China Many of these policies are explicitly related to the strategic aim of countering China’s rise, which is seen as vitiating the American economy and global leadership. Biden’s Trump-esque policies are a powerful indication of where the US median voter stands and hence of long-term significance (Chart 2). Thus competition between the US and China for global economic, military, and political leadership is entering a new phase. China’s drive for self-reliance threatens the US-led global trade system, while the US’s still-preeminent geopolitical power threatens China’s vital lines of supply. Chart 2US Public’s Fears Are China-Centric Re-Ordering Global Trade The US’s and China’s demonstrable willingness to use tariffs, non-tariff trade barriers, export controls, and sanctions cannot be expected to abate given that they are locked in great power competition (Chart 3). More than likely, the US and China will independently pursue trade relations with their respective allies and partners, which will replace the mostly ineffective World Trade Organization (WTO) framework. The WTO is the successor to the rules-based and market-oriented system known as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which was formed following World War II. The GATT’s founders shared a strong desire to avoid a repeat of the global economic instability brought on by World War I, the Great Crash of 1929, and the retreat into autarky and isolationism that led to WWII. Chart 3US and China Imposing Trade Restrictions This inter-war period saw domestically focused monetary policies and punishing tariffs that spawned ruinous bouts of inflation and deflation. Minimizing tariffs, leveling the playing field in trading markets, and reducing subsidization of state corporate champions were among the GATT's early successes. The WTO, like the GATT before it, has no authority to command a state to change its economy or the way it chooses to organize itself. At its inception the GATT's modus vivendi was directed at establishing a rules-based system free of excessive government intrusion and regulation. If governments agreed to reduce their domestic favoritism, they could all improve their economic efficiency while avoiding a relapse into autarky and the military tensions that go with it.2 The prime mover in the GATT's founding and early evolution – the USA – firmly believed that exclusive trading blocs had created the groundwork for economic collapse and war. These trading blocs had been created by European powers with their respective colonies. During the inter-war years the revival of protectionism killed global trade and exacerbated the Great Depression. After WWII, Washington was willing to use its power as the global hegemon to prevent a similar outcome. Policymakers believed that European and global economic integration would encourage inter-dependency and discourage protectionism and war. The fall of the Soviet Union reinforced this neoliberal Washington Consensus. Countries like India and China adopted market-oriented policies. The WTO was formed along with a range of global trade deals. Ultimately the US and the West cleared the way for China to join the trading bloc, hoping that the transition from communism to capitalism would eventually be coupled with social and even political liberalization. The world took a very different turn as the United States descended into a morass of domestic political divisions and foreign military adventures. China seized the advantage to expand its economy free of interference from the US or West. The West failed to insist that liberal economic reforms keep pace.3 Moreover, when China joined the WTO in 2001, the organization was in a state of "regulatory stalemate," which made it incapable of dealing with the direct challenges presented by China.4 Today President Xi has consolidated control over the Communist Party and directs its key economic, political, and military policymaking bodies. He has deepened party control down to the management level of SOEs – hiring and firing management. SOEs have benefited from Xi’s rule (Chart 4). But now the West is also reasserting the role of the state in the economy and trade, which means that punitive measures can be brought to bear on China’s SOEs. Chart 4State-Owned Enterprises Benefit From Xi Administration What Comes After The WTO? The CCP has shown no interest in coming around to the WTO's founding beliefs of government non-interference in the private sector. For example, it is doubling down on subsidization and party control of SOEs, which compete against firms in other WTO member states. Nor has the party shown any inclination to accept a trade system based on the GATT/WTO founding members' Western understanding of the rule of law. These states represent market-based economies with long histories of case law for settling disputes. Specifically, China’s fourteenth five-year plan and recent policies re-emphasize the need to upgrade the manufacturing sector rather than rebalancing the economy toward household consumption. The latter would reduce imbalances with trade deficit countries like the US but China is wary of the negative social consequences of too rapidly de-industrializing its economy. It wants to retain its strategic and economic advantage in global manufacturing and it fears the social and political consequences of fully adopting consumer culture (Chart 5). Chart 5China’s Economic Plans Re-Emphasize Manufacturing, Not Consumption The US, EU, and Japan have proposed reform measures for the WTO aimed at addressing “severe excess capacity in key sectors exacerbated by government financed and supported capacity expansion, unfair competitive conditions caused by large market-distorting subsidies and state owned enterprises, forced technology transfer, and local content requirements and preferences.”5 But these measures are unlikely to succeed. China disagrees with the West’s characterization. In 2018-19, during the trade war with the US, Beijing contended that WTO members must “respect members’ development models.” China formally opposes “special and discriminatory disciplines against state-owned enterprises in the name of WTO reform.”6 In bilateral negotiations with the US this year, China’s first demand is that the US not to oppose its development model of “socialism with Chinese characteristics” (Table 2). Table 2China’s Three Diplomatic Demands Of The United States (2021) Yet it is hard for the US not to oppose this model because it involves Beijing using the state’s control of the economy to strengthen national security strategy, namely by the fusion of civil and military technology. Going forward, the Biden administration will violate the number one demand that Chinese diplomats have made: it will attempt to galvanize the democracies to put pressure on China’s development model. China’s demand itself reflects its violation of the US primary demand that China stop using the state to enhance its economy at the expense of competitors. If a breakdown in global trading rules is replaced by the US and China forming separate trading blocs with their allies and partners, the odds of repeating the mistakes of the inter-bellum years of 1918-39 will significantly increase. Tariff wars, subsidizing national champions, heavy taxation of foreign interests, non-tariff barriers to trade, domestic-focused monetary policies, and currency wars would become more likely. China’s Strategic Vulnerability The CCP has delivered remarkable prosperity and wealth to the average Chinese citizen in the 43 years since it undertook market reforms, and especially since its accession to the WTO in 2001 (Chart 6). China has transformed from an economic backwater into a $15.4 trillion (2020) economy and near-peer competitor to the US militarily and economically.7 This growth has propelled China to the top of commodity-importing and -consuming states globally for base metals and oil. We follow these markets closely, because they are critical to sustaining economic growth, regardless of how states are organized. Production of and access to these commodities, along with natural gas, will be critical over the next decade, as the world decarbonizes its energy sources, and as the US and China address their own growth and social agendas while vying for global hegemony. Decarbonization is part of the strategic race since all major powers now want to increase economic self-sufficiency and technological prowess. Chart 6CCPs Remarkable Success In Growing Chinas Economy Over recent decades China has become the largest importer of base metals ores (Chart 7) and the world's top refiner of many of these metals. In addition, it is the top consumer of refined metal (Chart 8). Chart 7China Is World’s Top Ore Importer Chart 8China Is Worlds Top Refined Metal Consumer By contrast, the US is not listed among ore importers or metals consumers in the Observatory of Economic Complexity (OEC) databases we used to map these commodities. This reflects not only domestic supplies but also the lack of investment and upgrades to the US's critical infrastructure over 2000-19.8 Going forward, the US is trying to invest in “nation building” at home. An enormous change has taken shape in strategic liabilities. In the oil market, the US went from being the world's largest importer of oil in 2000, accounting for more than 24% of imports globally, to being the largest oil and gas producer by 2019, even though it still accounted for more than 12% of the world's imports (Chart 9). In 2000, China accounted for ~ 3.5% of the world's oil imports and by 2019 it was responsible for nearly 21%. China is far behind per capita US energy consumption, given its large population, but it is gradually closing the gap (Chart 10). Overall energy consumption in China is much higher than in the US (Chart 11). Chart 9US Oil Imports Collapse As Shale Production Grows Chart 10Energy Use Per Capita In China Far From US Levels... Chart 11China Is World’s Largest Primary Energy Consumer China's impressive GDP growth in the twenty-first century is primarily responsible for China's stunning growth in imports and consumption of oil (Chart 12) and copper (Chart 13), which we track closely as a proxy for the entire base-metals complex. Chart 12Global Oil Demand Forecast Remains Steady Chinas GDP Drives Oil Consumption, Imports Chart 13Global Oil Demand Forecast Remains Steady Chinas GDP Drives Refined Copper Consumption And Ore Imports China’s importance in these markets points to an underlying strategic weakness, which is its dependency on imports. This in turn points to the greatest danger of the breakdown in US-China relations and the global trade system. The Road To War? China is extremely anxious about maintaining supply security in light of these heavy import needs. Its pursuit of economic self-sufficiency, including decarbonization, is driven by its fear of the US’s ability to cut off its key supply lines. China’s first goal in modernizing its military in recent years was to develop a naval force capable of defending the country from foreign attack, particularly in its immediate maritime surroundings. Historically China suffered from invaders across the sea who took advantage of its weak naval power to force open its economy and exploit it. Today China is thought to have achieved this security objective. It is believed to have a high level of capability within the “first island chain” that surrounds the coast, from the Korean peninsula to the Spratly Islands, including southwest Japan and Taiwan (Map 1).9 China’s militarization of the South China Sea, suppression of Hong Kong, and intimidation of Taiwan shows its intention to dominate Greater China, which would put it in a better strategic position relative to other countries. Map 1China’s Navy Likely Achieved Superiority Within The First Island Chain China’s capability can be illustrated by comparing its naval strength to that of the United States, the most powerful navy in the world. While the US is superior, China would be able to combine all three of its fleets within the first island China, while the US navy would be dispersed across the world and divided among a range of interests to defend (Table 3). China would also be able to bring its land-based air force and missile firepower to bear within the first island chain, as opposed to further abroad.10 Table 3China’s Naval Growth Enables Primacy Within First Island Chain In this sense China is militarily capable of conquering Taiwan or other nearby islands. President Xi Jinping had in fact ordered China’s armed forces be capable of doing so by 2020.11 Taiwan continues to be the most significant source of insecurity for the regime. True, a military victory would likely be a pyrrhic victory, as Taiwan’s wealth and tech industry would be destroyed, but China probably has the raw military capability to defeat Taiwan and its allies within this defined space. However, this military capability needs to be weighed against economic capability. If China seized military control of Taiwan, or Okinawa or other neighboring territories, the US, Japan, and their allies would respond by cutting off China’s access to critical supplies. Most obviously oil and natural gas. China’s decarbonization has been impressive but the reliance on foreign oil is still a fatal strategic vulnerability over the next few years (Chart 14). China is rapidly pursuing a Eurasian strategy to diversify away from the Middle East in particular. But it still imports about half its oil from this volatile region (Chart 15). The US navy is capable of interdicting China’s critical oil flows, a major inhibition on China’s military ambitions within the first island chain. Chart 14Chinas Energy Diversification Still Leaves Vulnerabilities Of course, if the US and its allies ever blockaded China, or if China feared they would, Beijing could be driven to mount a desperate attack to prevent them from doing so, since its economic, military, and political survival would be on the line. Chart 15China Still Dependent On Middle East Energy Supplies The obvious historical analogy is the US-Japan conflict in WWII. Invasions that lead to blockades will lead to larger invasions, as the US and Japan learned.12 However, the lesson from WWII for China is that it should not engage the US navy until its own naval power has progressed much further. In the event of a conflict, the US would be imposing a blockade at a distance from China’s naval and missile forces. When it comes to the far seas, China’s naval capabilities are extremely limited. Military analysts highlight that China lacks a substantial naval presence in the Indian Ocean. China relies on commercial ports, where it has partial equity ownership, for ship supply and maintenance (Table 4). This is no substitute for naval basing, because dedicated military facilities are lacking and host countries may not wish to be drawn into a conflict. Table 4China’s Network Of Part-Owned Ports Across The World: Useful But Not A Substitute For Military Bases Further, Beijing lacks the sea-based air power necessary to defend its fleets should they stray too far. And it lacks the anti-submarine warfare capabilities necessary to defend its ships.13 These capabilities are constantly improving but at the moment they are insufficient to overthrow US naval control of the critical chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz or Strait of Malacca. While China’s naval power is comparable to the US’s Asia Pacific fleet (the seventh fleet headquartered in Japan), it is much smaller than the US’s global fleet and at a much greater disadvantage when operating far from home. China’s navy is based at home and focused on its near seas, whereas US fleet is designed to operate in the far seas, especially the Persian Gulf, which is precisely the strategic area in question (Chart 16).14 China is gradually expanding its navy and operations around the world, so over time it may gain the ability to prevent the US from cutting off its critical supplies in the Persian Gulf. But not immediately. The implication is that China will have to avoid direct military conflict with the United States until its military and naval buildup has progressed a lot further. Chart 16China’s Navy At Huge Disadvantage In Distant Seas Meanwhile Beijing will continue diversifying its energy sources, decarbonizing, and forging supply chains across Eurasia via the Belt and Road Initiative. What could go wrong? We would highlight a few risks that could cause China to risk war even despite its vulnerability to blockade: Chart 17China’s Surplus Of Males Undergirds Rise In Nationalism Domestic demographic pressure. China is slated to experience a dramatic bulge in the male-to-female ratio over the coming decade (Chart 17).15 A surfeit of young men could lead to an overshoot of nationalism and revanchism. This trend is much more important than the symbolic political anniversaries of 2027, 2035, and 2049, which analysts use to predict when China’s military might launch a major campaign. Domestic economic pressure. China’s turn to nationalism reflects slowing income growth and associated social instability. An economic crisis in China would be worrisome for regional stability for many reasons, but such pressures can lead nations into foreign military adventures. Domestic political pressure. China has shifted from “consensus rule” to “personal rule” under Xi Jinping. This could lead to faulty decision-making or party divisions that affect national policy. A leadership that carefully weighs each strategic risk could decay into a leadership that lacks good information and perspective. The result could be hubris and belligerence abroad. Foreign aggression. Attempts by the US or other powers to arm China’s neighbors or sabotage China’s economy could lead to aggressive reaction. The US’s attempt to build a technological blockade shows that future embargoes and blockades are not impossible. These could prompt a war rather than deter it, as noted above. Foreign weakness. China’s capabilities are improving over time while the US and its allies lack coordination and resolution. An opportunity could arise that China’s strategists believe they cannot afford to miss. Afghanistan is not one of these opportunities, but a US-Iran war or another major conflict with Russia could be. The breakdown in global trade is concerning because without an economic buffer, states may resort to arms to resolve disputes. History shows that military threats intended to discourage aggressive behavior can create dilemmas that incentivize aggression. The behavior of the US and China suggests that they are preparing for war, even if we are generous and assume that they are doing so only to deter war. Both countries are nuclear powers so they face mutually assured destruction in a total war scenario. But they will seek to improve their security within that context, which can lead to naval skirmishes, proxy wars, and even limited wars with associated risks of going nuclear. Investment Takeaways The pursuit of the national interest today involves using fiscal means to create more self-sufficient domestic economies and reduce international supply risks. Both China and the West are engaged in major projects to this end, including high-tech industrialization, domestic manufacturing, and decarbonization. These trends are generally bullish for commodities, even though they include trends like military modernization and naval expansion that could well be a prelude to war. War itself leads to commodity shortages and commodity price inflation, but of course it is disastrous for the people and economies involved. Fortunately, strategic deterrence continues to operate for the time being. The underlying geopolitical trend will put commodity markets under continual pressure. A final urgent update on oil and the Middle East: The US attempt to conduct a strategic “pivot” to Asia Pacific faces a critical juncture. Not because of Afghanistan but because of Iran. The Biden administration will have trouble unilaterally lowering sanctions on Iran after the humiliating Afghanistan pullout. The new administrations in both Iran and Israel are likely to establish red lines and credible threats. A higher geopolitical risk premium is thus warranted immediately in global oil markets. Beyond short-term shows of force, everything depends on whether the US and Iran can find a temporary deal to avoid the path to a larger war. But for now short-term geopolitical risks are commodity-bullish as well as long-term risks.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1     There are also significant differences between Biden and Trump in other areas such as redistribution, immigration, and social policy. 2     See Ravenhill, John (2020), Regional Trade Agreements, Chapter 6 in Global Political Economy, which he edited for Oxford University Press, particularly pp. 156-9. 3    “As time went by, the United States realized that Communism not only did not retreat, but also further advanced in China, with the state-owned economy growing stronger and the rule of the Party further entrenched in the process." See Henry Gao, “WTO Reform and China Defining or Defiling the Multilateral Trading System?” Harvard International Law Journal 62 (2021), p. 28, harvardilj.org.  4    See Mavroidis, Petros C. and Andre Sapir (2021), China and the WTO, Why Multilateralism Still Matters (Princeton University Press) for discussion.  See also Confronting the Challenge of Chinese State Capitalism published by the Center for Strategic & International Studies 22 January 2021. 5    Gao (2021), p. 19. 6    Gao (2021), p. 24. 7     Please see China's GDP tops 100 trln yuan in 2020 published by Xinhuanet 18 January 2021. 8    We excluded 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic's effects on supply and demand for these ores, metals and crude oil. 9    See Captain James Fanell, “China’s Global Navy Strategy and Expanding Force Structure: Pathway To Hegemony,” Testimony to the US House of Representatives, May 17, 2018, docs.house.gov. 10   Fanell (2018), p. 13. 11    He has obliquely implied that his vision for national rejuvenation by 2035 would include reunification with Taiwan. Others suggest that the country’s second centenary of 2049 is the likely deadline, or the 100th anniversary of the People’s Liberation Army. 12    The US was a major supplier of oil to Japan, and in 1941 it froze Japan's assets in the US and shut down all oil exports, in response to Japan's military incursion into China in the Second Sino-Japanese War of 1937-45.  Please see Anderson, Irvine H. Jr. (1975), "The 1941 De Facto Embargo on Oil to Japan: A Bureaucratic Reflex," Pacific Historical Review, 44:2, pp. 201-231.  13   See Jeffrey Becker, “Securing China’s Lifelines Across the Indian Ocean,” China Maritime Report No. 11 (Dec 2020), China Maritime Studies Institute, digital-commons.usnwc.edu. 14   See Rear Admiral Michael McDevitt, “Becoming a Great ‘Maritime Power’: A Chinese Dream,” Center for Naval Analyses (June 2016), cna.org. 15   For discussion see Major Tiffany Werner, “China’s Demographic Disaster: Risk And Opportunity,” 2020, Defense Technical Information Center, discover.dtic.mil.  

Highlights Over the short term – 1-2 years – the pick-up in re-infection rates in Asia and LatAm states with large-scale deployments of Sinopharm and Sinovac COVID-19 vaccines will re-focus attention on demand-side risks to the global recovery (Chart of the Week). The UAE-Saudi impasse re extending the return of additional volumes of OPEC 2.0 spare capacity to the oil market over 2H21 will be short-lived.  The UAE's official baseline production will be increased to 3.8mm b/d from 3.2mm b/d presently, and its output in 2H21 will be adjusted accordingly.  Over the medium term – 3-5 years out – the risk to the expansion of metal supplies needed for renewables and electric vehicles (EVs) will rise, as left-of-center governments increase taxes and royalties, and carbon prices move higher. Rising metals costs will redound to the benefit of oil and gas producers, and accelerate R+D in carbon- and GHG-reduction technologies. Longer-term – 5-10 years out – the active discouragement of investment in hydrocarbons will contribute to energy shortages. In anticipation of continued upside volatility in commodity prices and share values of oil, gas and metals producers, we remain long the S&P GSCI and COMT ETF, and long equities of producers and traders via the PICK ETF. Feature Our conversations with clients almost invariably leads us to considering the risks to our long-standing bullish views for energy and metals. This week, we reprise some of the highlights of these conversations. In the short term, our bullish call on oil is underpinned by the assumption of continued expansion in vaccinations, which we believe will lead to global economic re-opening and increased mobility, as the world emerges from the devastation of COVID-19. This expectation is once again under scrutiny. On the supply side, the very public negotiations undertaken by the UAE and the leaders of OPEC 2.0 – the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia – over re-basing the UAE's production reminds investors there is substantial spare capacity from the coalition available for the market over the short term. The slow news cycle going into the US Independence Day holiday certainly was a fortuitous time to make such a point. Chart of the WeekWorrisome Uptick Of COVID-19 Cases KSA-UAE Supply-Side Worries The abrupt end to this week's OPEC 2.0 meeting was unsettling to markets. Shortly after the meeting ended – without being concluded – officials from the Biden administration in the US spoke with officials from KSA and the UAE, presumably to encourage resolution of outstanding issues and to get more oil into the market to keep crude oil prices below $80/bbl (Chart 2). We're confident the KSA-UAE impasse re extending the return of additional volumes of spare capacity to the oil market over 2H21 will be short-lived. The UAE's official baseline production number (i.e., its October 2018 output level) will be increased to 3.8mm b/d from 3.2mm b/d presently, and its output in 2H21 will be adjusted accordingly. Coupled with a likely return of Iranian export volumes in 4Q21, this will bring prices down into the mid- to high-$60/bbl range we are forecasting. Chart 2US Pushing For Resolution of KSA-UAE Spat Longer term, markets are worried this incident is a harbinger of a breakdown in OPEC 2.0's so-far-successful production-management strategy, which has lifted oil prices 200% since their March 2020 nadir. At present, the producer coalition has ~ 6-7mm b/d of spare capacity, which resulted from its strategy to keep the level of supply below demand. A breakdown in this discipline – in extremis, another price war of the sort seen in March 2020 or from 2014-2016 – could plunge oil markets into a price collapse that re-visits sub-$40/bbl levels. In our view, economics – specifically the cold economic reality of the price elasticity of supply – continues to work for the OPEC 2.0 coalition: Higher revenues are realized by members of the group as long as relatively small production cuts produce larger revenue gains – e.g., a 5% (or less) cut in production that produces a 20% (or more) increase in price trumps a 20% increase in production that reduces prices by 50%. Besides, none of the members of the coalition possess the wherewithal to endure another shock-and-awe display from KSA similar to the one following the breakdown of the March 2020 OPEC 2.0 meeting. We also continue to expect US shale-oil producers to be disciplined by capital markets, and to retain a focus on providing competitive returns to their shareholders, which will limit supply growth to that which maintains profitability. Until we see actual evidence of a breakdown in the coalition's willingness to maintain its production-management strategy, we will continue to assume it remains operative. Worrisome COVID-19 Re-Infection Trends Reports of increased re-infection rates in Latin American and Asia-Pacific states providing Chinese Sinopharm and Sinovac COVID-19 vaccines will re-focus attention on demand-side risks to the global recovery. Conclusive data on the efficacy of these vaccines is not available at present, based on reporting from Health Policy Watch (HPW).1 The vast majority of these vaccines were purchased in Latin America and the Asia-Pacific region, where ~ 80% of the 759mm doses of the two Chinese vaccines were sold, according to HPW's reporting. This will draw the attention of markets to this risk (Chart 3). Of particular concern are the increases in re-infection rates in the Seychelles and Chile, where the majority of populations in both countries were inoculated with one of the Chinese vaccines. Re-infections in Indonesia also are drawing attention, where more than 350 healthcare workers were re-infected after receiving the Sinovac vaccination.2 The risk of renewed global lockdowns remains small, but if these experiences are repeated globally with adverse health consequences, this assessment could be challenged. Chart 3COVID-19 Returning In High-Vaccination States Transition Risks To A Low-Carbon Economy Over the medium- to long-terms, our metals views are premised on the expectation the build-out of the global EV fleet and renewable electricity generation – including its supporting grids – will require massive increases in the supply of copper, aluminum, nickel, and tin, not to mention iron ore and steel. This surge in demand will be occurring as governments rush headlong into unplanned and unsynchronized wind-downs of investment in the hydrocarbon fuels that power modern economies.3 The big risk here is new metal supplies will not be delivered fast enough to build all of the renewable generation, EVs and their supporting grids and infrastructures to cover the loss of hydrocarbons phased out by policy, legal and boardroom challenges. Such a turn of events would re-invigorate oil and gas production. Renewable energy and electric vehicles are the sine qua non of the drive to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. However, the rising price of base metals will add to already high costs of rebuilding power grids to make them suitable for green energy. Given miners’ reluctance to invest in new mines, we do not expect metals prices to drop anytime soon. According to Wood Mackenzie, in 2019 the cost of shifting just the US power grid to renewable energy over the next 10 years will amount to $4.5 trillion.4 Given these cost and supply barriers, fossil fuels will need to be used for longer than the IEA outlined in its recent and controversial report on transitioning to a net-zero economy.5 To ensure that fossil fuels can be used while countries work to achieve their net zero goals, carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS) technology will need to be developed and made cheaper. The main barrier to entry for CCUS technology is its high cost (Chart 4). However, like renewable energy, the more it is deployed and invested in, the cheaper it will become, following the trend seen in the development of renewable energy and EVs, which were aided by large-scale subsidies from governments to encourage the development of the technology. These cost reductions are already visible: In its 2019 report, the Global CCS Institute noted the cost of implementing CCS technology initially used in 2014 had fallen by 35% three years later. Chart 4CCUS Can Be Expensive Metals Mines' Long Lead Times In 2020 the total amount of discovered copper reserves in the world stood at ~ 870mm MT (Chart 5), according to the US Geological Service (USGS). As of 2017, the total identified and undiscovered amount of reserves was ~ 5.6 billion MT.6 The World Bank recently estimated additional demand for copper would amount to ~ 20mm MT p.a. by 2050 (Chart 6).7 Glencore’s recently retired CEO Ivan Glasenberg last month said that by 2050, miners will need to produce around 60mm MT p.a. of copper to keep up with demand for countries’ net zero initiatives.8 Even with this higher estimate, if miners focus on exploration and can tap into undiscovered reserves, supply will cover demand for the renewable energy buildout. Chart 5Copper Reserves Are Abundant Chart 6Call On Base Metals Supply Will Be Massive Out To 2050 While recent legislative developments in Chile and Peru, which together constitute ~ 34% of total discovered copper reserves, could lead to significantly higher costs as left-of-center governments re-write these states' constitutions, geological factors would not be the main constraint to copper supply for the renewables energy buildout: Even if copper mining companies were to move out of these two countries, there still is about 570 million MT in discovered copper reserves, and nearly ten times that amount in undiscovered reserves. As we have written in the past, capital expenditure restraint is the principal reason the supply side of copper markets – and base metals generally – is challenged (Chart 7). Unlike in the previous commodity boom, this time mining companies are focusing on providing returns to shareholders, instead of funding the development of new mines (Chart 8). Chart 7Copper Prices Remains Parsimonious Chart 8Shareholder Interests Predominate Metals Agendas Of course, it is likely metals miners, like oil producers, are waiting to see actual demand for copper and other base metals pick up before ramping capex. Sharp increases in forecasted demand is not compelling for miners, at this point. This means metals prices could stay elevated for an extended period, given the 10-15-year lead times for copper mines (Chart 9). For example, the Kamoa-Kakula mine in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) now being brought on line took roughly 24 years of exploration and development work, before it started producing copper. Technological breakthroughs that increase brownfield projects’ productivity, or significant increases in the amount of recycled copper as a percent of total copper supply would address some of the price pressures arising from the long lead times associated with the development of new copper supply. Another scenario with a non-trivial probability that threatens the viability of metals investing is a breakthrough – or breakthroughs – in CCUS technology, which allows oil and gas producers to remove enough carbon from their fuels to allow firms using these fuels to achieve their net-zero carbon goals. Chart 9Long Lead Times For Mine Development Investment Implications Short-term supply-demand issues affecting the oil market at present are transitory, and do not signal a shift in the fundamentals supporting our bullish call on oil. Our thesis based on continued production discipline remains intact. That said, we will continue to subject it to rigorous scrutiny on a continual basis. Our average Brent forecast for 2021 remains $66.50/bbl, with 2H21 prices averaging $70/bbl. For 2022 and 2023 we continue to expect prices to average $74 and $81/bbl, respectively (Chart 10). WTI will trade $2-$3/bbl lower. Our metals view has become slightly more nuanced, thanks to our client conversations. One of the unintended consequences of the unplanned and uncoordinated rush to a net-zero carbon future will be an improvement in the competitive position of oil and gas as transportation fuels and electric-generation fuels going forward. This will be driven by rising costs of developing and delivering the metals supplies needed to effect the net-zero transition. We expect markets will provide incentives to CCUS technologies and efforts to decarbonize oil and gas fuels, which will contribute to the global effort to arrest rising temperatures. This suggests the rush to sell these assets – which is underway at present – could be premature.9 In the extreme, this could be a true counterbalance to the metals story, if it plays out. Chart 10Our Oil Price View Remains Intact     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 The monthly OPEC 2.0 meeting ended without any action to increase monthly supplies, following the UAE's bid to increase its baseline reference production – determined based on October 2018 production levels – to 3.8mm b/d, up from 3.2mm b/d. S&P Global Platts reported the UAE's Energy Minister, Suhail al-Mazrouei, advanced a proposal to raise its monthly production level under the coalition's overall output deal, while KSA's energy minister, Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman, insisted the UAE follow OPEC 2.0 procedures in seeking an output increase. We do not expect this issue to become a protracted standoff between these states. The disagreement between the ministers is procedural to substantive. Remarks by bin Salman last month – to wit, KSA has a role in containing inflation globally – and his earlier assertions that production policy of OPEC 2.0 would be driven by actual oil demand, as opposed to forecasted oil demand, suggest the Kingdom is not aiming for higher oil prices per se. Base Metals: Bullish Spot benchmark iron ore (62 Fe) prices traded above $222/MT this week in China on the back of stronger steel demand, according to mining.com (Chart 11). Market participants are anticipating further steel-production restrictions and appear to be trying to get out in front of them. Precious Metals: Bullish The USD rally eased this week, allowing gold prices to stabilize following the June Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting. In the two weeks since the FOMC, our gold composite indicator shows that gold started entering oversold territory (Chart 12). We believe gold prices will start correcting upwards, expecting investor bargain-hunting to pick up after the price drop. The mixed US jobs report, which showed the unemployment rate ticked up more than expected, implies that interest rates are not going to be raised soon. Our colleagues at BCA Research's US Bond Strategy (USBS) expect rates to increase only by end-2022.10 This, along with slightly higher odds of a potential COVID-19 resurgence, will support gold prices in the near-term. Ags/Softs: Neutral The USDA's Crop Progress report for the week ended 4 July 2021 showed 64% of the US corn crop was in good to excellent condition, down from the 71% reported for the comparable 2020 date. The Department reported 59% of the bean crop was in good to excellent shape vs 71% the year earlier. Chart 11 Chart 12     Footnotes 1     Please see Are Chinese COVID Vaccines Underperforming? A Dearth of Real-Life Studies Leaves Unanswered Questions, published by Health Policy Watch, June 18, 2021. 2     According to HPW, the World Health Organization's Emergency Use Listing for these two vaccines "were unique in that unlike the Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Moderna, and Jonhson & Johonson vaccines that it had also approved, neither had undergone review and approval by a strict national or regional regulatory authority such as the US Food and Drug Administration or the European Medicines Agency. Nor have Phase 3 results of the Sinopharm and Sinovac trials been published in a peer-reviewed medical journal.  More to the point, post-approval, any large-scale tracking of the efficacy of the Sinovac and Sinopharm vaccine rollouts by WHO or national authorities seems to be missing." 3    Please see A Perfect Energy Storm On The Way, which we published on June 3, 2021 for additional discussion.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4    Please refer to The Price of a Fully Renewable US Grid: $4.5 Trillion, published by greentechmedia 28 June 2019. 5    Please refer to the IEA's Net Zero By 2050, published in May 2021. 6    Please refer to USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries, 2021. 7     Please refer to Minerals for Climate Action: The Mineral Intensity of the Clean Energy Transition, published by the World Bank. 8    Please refer to Copper supply needs to double by 2050, Glencore CEO says, published by reuters.com on June 22, 2021. 9    Please see the FT's excellent coverage of this trend in A $140bn asset sale: the investors cashing in on Big Oil’s push to net zero published on July 6, 2021. 10   Please refer to Watch Employment, Not Inflation, published by the USBS on June 15, 2021.   Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades

Highlights Political and corporate climate activism will increase the cost of developing the resources required to produce and deliver energy going forward – e.g., oil and gas wells; pipelines; copper mines, and refineries. Over the short run, the fastest way for investor-owned companies (IOCs) to address accelerated reductions in CO2 emissions imposed by courts and boards is to walk away from the assets producing them, which could be disruptive over the medium term. Longer term, state-owned companies (SOCs) not facing the constraints of IOCs likely will be required to provide an increasing share of the resources needed to produce and distribute energy. The real difficulty will come in the medium term. Capex for critical metals like copper languishes, just as the call on these metals steadily increases over the next 30 years (Chart of the Week). The evolution to a low-carbon future has not been thought through at the global policy level. A real strategy must address underinvestment in base metals and incentivize the development of technology via a carbon tax – not emissions trading schemes – so firms can innovate to avoid it. We remain long energy and metals exposures.1 Feature And you may ask yourself, "Well … how did I get here?" David Byrne, Once In A Lifetime Energy markets – broadly defined – are radically transforming from week to week. The latest iteration of these markets' evolution is catalyzed by climate activists, who are finding increasing success in court and on corporate boards – sometimes backed by major institutional investors – and forcing oil and gas producers to accelerate CO2 emission-reduction programs.2 Climate activists' arguments are finding increasing purchase because they have merit: Years of stiff-arming investors seeking clarity on the oil and gas producers' decarbonization agendas, coupled with a pronounced failure to provide returns in excess of their cost of capital, have given activists all of the ammo needed to argue their points. Chart of the WeekCall On Metals For Energy Will Increase This activism is not limited to the courts or boardrooms. Voters in democratic societies with contested elections also are seeking redress for failures of their governments to effectively channel mineral wealth back into society on an equitable basis, and to protect their environments and the habitats of indigenous populations. This voter activism is especially apparent in Chile and Peru, where elections and constitutional conventions likely will result in higher taxes and royalties on metals IOCs operating in these states, which will increase production costs and ultimately be passed on to consumers.3 These states account for ~ 40% of world copper output. IOCs Walk Away Earlier this week, Exxon walked away from an early-stage offshore oil development project in Ghana.4 This followed the unfavorable court rulings and boardroom setbacks experienced by Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron and Exxon recently (referenced in fn. 2). While the company had no comment on its abrupt departure, its action shows how IOCs can exercise their option to put a project back to its host government, thus illustrating one of the most readily available alternatives for energy IOCs to meet court- or board-mandated CO2 emissions targets. If these investments qualify as write-offs, the burden will be borne by taxpayers. As climate activism increases, state-owned companies (SOCs) not facing the constraints of IOCs likely will be required to provide an increasing share of the resources – particularly oil and gas – needed to produce and distribute energy going forward. This is not an unalloyed benefit, as the SOCs still face stranded-asset risks, if they invest in longer-lived assets that are obviated by a successful renewables + grid buildout globally. That is a cost that will have to be compensated, when the SOCs work up their capex allocations. Still, if legal and investor activism significantly accelerates IOCs' capex reductions in oil and gas projects, the SOCs – particularly those in OPEC 2.0 – will be able to expand their position as the dominant supplier in the global oil market, and could perhaps increase their influence on price levels and forward-curve dynamics (Chart 2).5 Chart 2OPEC 2.0s Could Expand If Investor Activism Increases Higher Call On Metals At present, there is a lot of talk about the need to invest in renewable electricity generation and the grid structure supporting it, but very little in the way of planning for this transition. Other than repeated assertions of its necessity, little is being said regarding how exactly this strategy will be executed given the magnitude of the supply increase in metals required. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the refined copper market, which has been in a physical deficit – i.e., production minus consumption is negative – for the last 6 years (Chart 3). Physical copper markets in China, which consumes more than 50% of refined output, remain extremely tight, as can be seen in the ongoing weakness of treating charges and refining charges (TC/RC) for the past year (Chart 4). These charges are inversely correlated to prices – when TC/RCs are low, it means there is surplus refining capacity for copper – unrefined metal is scarce, which drives down demand for these services. Chart 3Coppers Physical Deficit Likely Persist Chart 4Chinas Refined Copper Supply Remains TightTheoretically, high prices will incentivize higher levels of production. However, after the last decade’s ill-timed investment in new mine discoveries and expansions, mining companies have become more wary with their investments, and are using earnings to pay dividends and reduce debt. This leads us to believe that mining companies will not invest in new mine discoveries but will use capital expenditure to expand brownfield projects to meet rising demand. In the last decade, as copper demand rose, capex for copper rose from 2010-2012, and fell from 2013-2016 (Chart 5). During this time, the copper ore grade was on a declining trend. This implies that the new copper brought online was being mined from lower-grade ore, due to the expansion of existing projects(Chart 6). Chart 5Copper Capex Growth Remains Weak Chart 6Copper Ore-Quality Declines Persist Through Capex Cycle Capex directed at keeping ore production above consumption will not be sufficient to avoid major depletions of ore supplies beginning in 2024, according to Wood Mackenzie. The consultancy foresees a cumulative deficit of ~ 16mm MT by 2040. Plugging this gap will require $325-$500 billion of investment in the copper mining sector.6 The Case For A Carbon Tax The low-carbon future remains something of a will-o'-the-wisp – seen off in the future but not really developed in the present. Most striking in discussions of the low-carbon transition is the assumption of resource availability – particularly bases metals –in, e.g., the IEA's Net Zero by 2050, A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector, published last month. In the IEA's document, further investment in hydrocarbons is not required beyond 2025. The copper, aluminum, steel, etc., required to build the generation and supporting grid infrastructure will be available and callable as needed to build all the renewable generation the world requires. The document is agnostic between carbon trading and carbon taxes as a way to price carbon and incentivize the technology that would allow firms and households to avoid a direct cost on carbon. A real strategy must address the fact that most of the world will continue to rely on fossil fuels for decades, as development goals are pursued. Underinvestment in base metals and its implications for the buildout of generation and grids has to be a priority if these assets are to be built. Given the 5-10-year lead times base metals mines require to come online, it is obvious that beyond the middle of this decade, the physical reality of demand exceeding supply will assert itself. A good start would be a global effort to impose and collect carbon taxes uniformly across states.7 This would need to be augmented with a carbon club, which restricts admission and trading privileges  to those states adopting such a scheme. Harmonizing the multiple emissions trading schemes worldwide will be a decades-long effort that is unlikely to succeed. Such schemes also can be gamed by larger players, producing pricing distortions. A hard and fast tax that is enforced in all of the members of such a carbon club would immediately focus attention on the technology required to avoid paying it – mobilizing capital, innovation and entrepreneurial drive to make it a reality. This would support carbon-capture, use and storage technologies as well, thus extending the life of existing energy resources as the next generation of metals-based resources is built out. In addition, a carbon tax raises revenue for governments, which can be used for a variety of public policies, including reducing other taxes to reduce the overall burden of taxation. Lastly, a tax eliminates the potential for short-term price volatility in the pricing of carbon – as long as households and firms know what confronts them they can plan around it.  Tax revenues also can be used to reduce the regressive nature of such levies. Investment Implications The lack of a coherent policy framework that addresses the very real constraints on the transition to a low-carbon economy makes the likelihood of a volatile, years-long evolution foreordained. We believe this will create numerous investment opportunities as underinvestment in hydrocarbons and base metals production predisposes oil, natural gas and base metals prices to move higher in the face of strong and rising demand. We remain long commodity index exposure – the S&P GSCI and GSCI Commodity Dynamic Roll Strategy ETF (COMT), which is optimized to take advantage of the most backwardated commodity forward curves in the index. These positions were up 5.3% and 7.2% since inception on December 7, 2017 and March 12, 2021, respectively, at Tuesday's close. We also remain long the MSCI Global Metals & Mining Producers ETF (PICK), which is up 33.9% since it was put on December 10, 2020. Expecting continued volatility in metals – copper in particular – we will look for opportunities to re-establish positions in COMEX/CME Copper after being stopped out with gains. A trailing stop was elected on our long Dec21 copper position established September 10, 2020, which was closed out with a 48.2% gain on May 21, 2021. Our long calendar 2022 vs short calendar 2023 COMEX copper backwardation trade established April 22, 2021, was closed out on May 20, 2021, leaving us with a return of 305%.   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 offered no surprises to markets this week, as it remained committed to returning just over 2mm b/d of production to the market over the May-July period, 70% of which comes from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), according to Platts. While Iran's return to the market is not a given in OPEC 2.0's geometry, we have given better than even odds it will return to the market beginning in 3Q21 and restore most of the 1.4mm b/d not being produced at present to the market over the course of the following year. OPEC itself expects demand to increase 6mm b/d this year, somewhat above our expectation of 5.3mm b/d. Stronger demand could raise Brent prices above our average $63/bbl forecast for this year (Chart 7). Brent was trading above $71/bbl as we went to press. Base Metals: Bullish BHP declared operations at its Escondida and Spence mines were running at normal rates despite a strike by some 200 operations specialists. BHP is employing so-called substitute workers to conduct operation, according to reuters.com, which also reported separate unions at both mines are considering strike actions in the near future. Precious Metals: Bullish The Fed’s reluctance to increase nominal interest rates despite indications of higher inflation will reduce real rates, which will support higher gold prices (Chart 8). We agree with our colleagues at BCA Research's US Bond Strategy that the Fed is waiting for the US labor market to reach levels consistent with its assessment of maximum employment before it makes its initial rate hike in this interest-rate cycle. Subsequent rate changes, however, will be based on realized inflation and inflation expectations. In our opinion, the Fed is following this ultra-accommodative monetary policy approach to break the US liquidity trap, brought about by a rise in precautionary savings due to the pandemic. In addition, we continue to expect USD weakness, which also will support gold and precious metals prices. We remain long gold, expecting prices to clear $2,000/oz this year. Ags/Softs: Neutral Corn prices fell more than 2% Wednesday, following the release of USDA estimates showing 95% of the corn crop was planted by 31 May 2021, well over the 87% five-year average. This was in line with expectations. However, the Department's assessment that 76% of the crop was in good-to-excellent condition exceeded market expectations. Chart 7 Chart 8 Footnotes 1     Please see Trade Tables below. 2     Please see OPEC, Russia seen gaining more power with Shell Dutch ruling and EXCLUSIVE BlackRock backs 3 dissidents to shake up Exxon board -sources published by reuters.com June 1, 2021 and May 25, 2021. 3    Please see Chile's govt in shock loss as voters pick independents to draft constitution published by reuters.com May 17, 2021, and Peru’s elite in panic at prospect of hard-left victory in presidential election published by ft.com June 1, 2021.  Peru has seen significant capital flight on the back of these fears.  See also Results from Chile’s May 2021 elections published by IHS Markit May 21, 2021 re a higher likelihood of tax increases for the mining sector.  The risk of nationalization is de minimis, according to IHS. 4    Please see Exxon walks away from stake in deepwater Ghana block published by worldoil.com June 1, 2021. 5    Please see OPEC 2.0's Production Strategy In Focus, which we published on May 20, 2021, for a recap our how we model OPEC 2.0's strategy.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 6    Please see Will a lack of supply growth come back to bite the copper industry?, published by Wood Mackenzie on March 23, 2021. 7     Please see The Challenges and Prospects for Carbon Pricing in Europe published by the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies last month for a discussion of carbon taxes vs. emissions trading schemes.     Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades

ハイライト IEAの最新予測によれば、2021–22年の期間における世界の発電設備増加のうち、再生可能エネルギーの設備容量が90％を占める見込みです。これは、昨年追加された再生可能エネルギーの発電設備容量が前年同期比で45％増加したこと（COVID-19パンデミック下でも発生した）を受けたものです（今週のチャート）。 再生可能エネルギーと電気自動車（EV）への継続的な投資、および世界経済の回復により、銀行や商社の銅価格予測は1トンあたり約13,000～20,000ドルのレンジに引き上げられつつあり、現在の約10,600ドル/トン（約4.80ドル/ポンド）と比べて高い水準となっています。 これらのより強い金属価格見通しが的中すれば、カーボン回収やサーキュラー利用技術を通じて化石燃料の低炭素利用を延長する投資の魅力が高まるでしょう。 これらの技術への投資は、投資を評価するための明確な世界的参照価格が存在しないため限定的でした。カーボン市場や炭素税がそのような基準を提供すれば投資は加速します。これはカーボン・マーケット・クラブを通じて監視でき、税を公表し徴収する加盟国に取引を限定します。1 特集 IEAの最新の再生可能エネルギーに関するアップデートによれば、昨年の再生可能エネルギーの設備容量増加はほぼ280GWで、前年同期比45％増と1999年以来の最大の伸びでした。2 今年および来年については、再生可能エネルギーが設備容量増加の90％を占めると見込まれており、特に太陽光PVへの投資は約50％増の162GWに達すると予想されています。風力は昨年90％増の114GWにまで成長し、2022年末までに約50％増加する見込みです。 再生可能エネルギーの発電量の増加と電気自動車（EV）への投資の拡大に伴い、バルク（鉄鋼および鉄鉱石）や、銅を先頭とするベースメタルの需要が価格を押し上げるでしょう。これは、2020年末までの4年間で供給の伸びが停滞し物理的な不足が続いた背景のもとで起きています（チャート2）。IEAによれば、2020年9月から2021年3月の期間で鉄鋼および銅価格が40％上昇したことが、太陽光PVモジュール価格上昇の一因となりました。 今週のチャート 再生可能エネルギー設備容量の急増 金属価格の急騰とカーボンキャプチャーの必要性 金属価格の急騰とカーボンキャプチャーの必要性 我々の評価では、銅市場の供給側は今年と来年も不足が続く見込みであり、Wood Mackenzieが想定するように、今後20年間で需要が年率約2％で成長し、鉱山事業者が需要に見合う設備投資（capex）に踏み切らない場合、この傾向は継続する可能性があります。3 チャート2 物理的な赤字が銅の在庫を引き下げる... 現物不足が銅在庫を取り崩す… 現物不足が銅在庫を取り崩す… 銅や、再生可能エネルギーの構築やインフラに必要な他の金属に関するESGリスクは、価格上昇に伴って高まり、コストを押し上げます。4 こうしたコスト上昇とESGリスクの増大は、我々の見解ではカーボン回収やサーキュラーエコノミー技術への投資魅力を高めます。これにより、もし技術が世界をネットゼロの方向へ近づけられるなら、低炭素の化石燃料の利用期間を延長することが可能になります。しかし、政府の政策がこの投資を誘発しない限り—例えば世界的なカーボン取引価格や炭素税を通じて—、これら技術への投資は低迷し続ける可能性が高いでしょう。 カーボン回収技術の果たせなかった約束 カーボン回収・利用・貯留（CCUS）の歴史は、高い期待と達成されない期待の繰り返しでした。気候変動緩和の手段として一般に認識されているものの、その導入は期待ほど速く進んでいません。 低炭素技術は化石燃料に基づく技術に比べてより多くの重要金属を必要とします（チャート3）。コストの問題に加え、再生可能エネルギー移行のために金属採掘が増えれば、採掘に伴うESGリスクも増大します。これについては当社の過去のリサーチで議論しました。5 Wood Mackenzieによれば、低炭素世界への移行を支えるのに必要な金属供給のために、鉱業会社は今後15年でほぼ1.7兆ドルの投資を行う必要があると推計しています。6 チャート3 低炭素技術は金属集約的である 金属価格の急騰とカーボン・キャプチャーの意義 金属価格の急騰とカーボン・キャプチャーの意義 こうした金属に関する差し迫った物理的需要を考えると、市場が現在織り込んでいるよりも長い期間、化石燃料が橋渡しとして使われるか、あるいは炭素をハイドロカーボンから除去する技術の成功度合いに応じて将来の一部として使われ続ける可能性が高いと言えます。そうであるならば、移行期において化石燃料を使い続けつつその環境影響を軽減するには、CO2やその他の温室効果ガス（GHG）排出を低減するための高度に焦点を絞った技術が必要になります。 そこでCCUS技術です：この技術は、化石燃料やバイオマスを用いて現代社会に必要なエネルギーを生産する過程で発生するCO2を捕捉します。現在の形態では、CO2は圧縮されて輸送されるか、地質構造や海洋貯留層に貯留されます。これを増進回収（EOR）に利用して、炭化水素を含む貯留層にCO2を注入することで採取が困難な油を抽出することも可能です。7 CCUS投資の余地 CCUSへの投資支出は増加しており、この技術を利用または実証する予定の施設数も増えています。IEAの『Energy Technology Perspectives 2020』の2020年版では、2017年以降に30件の新しい統合型CCUS施設が発表され、主に米国や欧州など先進国で進められているが、一部の新興国でも計画があると指摘しています。2020年時点で計画が高度な段階にあるプロジェクトは合計で270億ドルに相当し、2017年時点の計画投資の2倍以上となっています（チャート4）。 パリ協定の多くの目的の一つは、21世紀後半に人工的な排出と温室効果ガス（GHG）吸収（シンク）による除去との間でバランスを取ることです。実務的には、多くの国、特に新興国はこの期間中に開発のために化石燃料を使用し続ける必要があるでしょう（チャート5）。8 チャート4 ここまでのカーボン回収プロジェクト 急騰する金属価格とカーボンキャプチャーの必要性 急騰する金属価格とカーボンキャプチャーの必要性 チャート5 新興国の開発には化石燃料エネルギーが必要になる 高騰する金属価格とカーボン・キャプチャー導入の必要性 高騰する金属価格とカーボン・キャプチャー導入の必要性 エネルギー分野におけるCCUS 石炭に比べてGHG排出が少ない燃料、すなわち石炭のCO2の半分程度しか排出しない天然ガスは、グリーン発電への橋渡し（ブリッジ）として有効に使うことができます（チャート6）。 チャート6 天然ガスはブリッジ燃料として引き続き魅力的である 金属価格の急騰とカーボン・キャプチャ導入の必要性 金属価格の急騰とカーボン・キャプチャ導入の必要性 天然ガス中のCO2は、パイプライン品質のガスやLNGとして販売される前に除去する必要があります。通常、このCO2は大気中に放出されますが、CCUS技術を用いることで地質貯留層へ再注入し、増進回収（EOR）に利用することができます。このため、世界最大のLNG輸出国である米国のLNG企業は、より環境に配慮した事業運営を目指してCCUS技術への投資を検討しています。9 CCUSはまた、天然ガスや石炭を用いて低コストの水素（いわゆるブルー水素）を生産するためにも利用できます。これは再生可能エネルギー由来の電力を用いる電気分解による「グリーン水素」よりもコストが低く、ブルー水素の低コスト化は新興国にクリーンな水素を普及させ、脱炭素化に向けた新たな利用経路を開く可能性があります。 その他産業におけるCCUSの価値 CCUS技術は既存の発電所や産業プラントに後付けで導入することが可能であり、IEAによれば、そうでなければ2050年に約80億トンのCO2を排出し続ける可能性があるとされ、これは2020年のエネルギー部門の年間排出量のおよそ4分の1に相当します。 化石燃料を燃焼する発電所のうち、石炭火力発電は最大のCO2課題を抱えています。排出の大部分は中国やその他のアジア新興国から生じており、平均設備年齢は20年未満です。米国規制委員会協会によれば石炭火力発電所の平均寿命は40年であるため、これらの発電所は残存稼働年数が長く、2050年まで稼働し続ける可能性があります。既存の発電所や産業プラントを廃止したり用途変更したりする代替手段として、CCUSは唯一の選択肢となり得ます。 IEAは、ネットゼロ炭素排出を達成するにはCCUSが不可欠であると考えています。同機関のSustainable Development Scenarioでは、エネルギー部門からの世界のCO2排出が2070年までにネットゼロに減少するシナリオにおいて、CCUSは累積排出削減の15％を占めます。もし世界が2050年までにネットゼロを達成する必要がある場合、ほぼ50％多いCCUSの導入が必要となります。10 適切に実装・拡大されれば、CCUSは産業が石油、ガス、石炭を使い続けつつネットゼロ目標を達成することを可能にし、中期的には化石燃料需要を後押しする可能性があります。これは特に新興国の開発にとって重要です。 なぜCCUSはもっと進んでいないのか？何ができるか？ CCUSが広く使われていない主な理由はコストです。 現在、CO2を捕捉するコストはCO2濃度に基づいて変動し、直接空気回収（Direct Air Capture）が最も高価です（チャート7）。こうした高コストのために、CCUSは商業的に成立していません。 ただし、同じ議論は再生可能エネルギー導入に対してもかつては成り立ちました。かつて再生可能エネルギーの平準化発電コストは高価でしたが、政府補助金による拡大とスケールアップにより、ムーアの法則的なコスト低下曲線に沿ってコストは下がりました。Lazard Ltd.が報告する技術横断比較が可能な太陽光発電の平準化発電コストでは、2009年から2019年にかけて発電コストが89％低下し、359ドル/MWhから40ドル/MWhになりました（チャート8）。この学習曲線は、太陽光技術の導入を促進した政府補助金によって可能になりました。 チャート7 CCUSは高コストになり得る 金属価格の急騰とカーボンキャプチャーの必要性 金属価格の急騰とカーボンキャプチャーの必要性 チャート8 太陽光と同様に補助金がCCUSを支援し得る 補助金は、太陽光発電で行われたのと同様にCCUSを支援できる 補助金は、太陽光発電で行われたのと同様にCCUSを支援できる CCUS技術のコストは低下しています。例えば、2019年にGlobal CCS Instituteは、カナダのBoundary Damで2014年に稼働したCCSユニットでの捕捉コストが1トン当たり100ドルであったと報告しました。3年後に建設された米国のPetra Novaで、改良技術を用いた捕捉コストは1トン当たり65ドルでした。いずれも石炭火力発電所です。報告書はまた、Boundary DamやPetra Novaと同様のCCS技術を用いて2024–28年に稼働開始予定の石炭火力発電所では、学習曲線の進展、研究、規模の経済による資本コスト低下、デジタル化などにより1トン当たり約43ドルになると見込まれていると指摘しました。これらのコスト削減の共通点の一つは、企業がCCUSにより多く投資し、この技術に慣れ親しむ必要があるという点です。 再生可能エネルギーの事例と同様に、政府補助金はCCUSの運用コストの参入障壁を下げ、この技術の改良への参加を促します。初期の先駆的なCCUSは高価ですが、資本支援や税額控除といった補助によりCCUSの実装と研究は増加します。Boundary DamとPetra Novaは政府補助金の恩恵を受けた例であり、CCSユニット建設時にそれぞれカナダ政府および米国の機関から1億7,000万ドルと2億ドルの支援を受けました。 米国はまた45Q税額控除制度を導入しており、貯留されたCO2に対しては1トン当たり50ドル、増進回収のような用途で使用されたCO2に対しては1トン当たり35ドルを施設に支払います。Global CCS Instituteによれば、2019年末時点で米国に追加された8件の新しいCCUSプロジェクトのうち4件は、45Qの存在を主要な推進要因として挙げていました。 カーボン市場と炭素税の活用 2005年に導入されたEUの排出権取引制度（ETS）は、企業に市場の力を使って排出削減を促す革新的な政策の一例です。これらの市場で計測される炭素価格は、これまで記録されてこなかった負の外部性に具体的な価値を与えます。ETSの欠点は、長期の需給分析や計画を複雑にする政策変更に左右されるEUの環境政策実施に依存している点です。例えば、最近の目標引き上げでは2030年までに温室効果ガス排出を少なくとも55％削減することが掲げられました。 排出権の政策主導トレードに代わる手段としては、政府が課し徴収する排出量当たりの炭素税があります。これにより、鉱業で使用されるような化石燃料を用いる技術のコストが上昇し、再生可能エネルギー移行に必要なバルクやベースメタルの供給を増やすための技術を供給・使用する企業にCCUSなどでCO2を削減するインセンティブが与えられます。 ETS市場と政府によるCO2課税は、ウィリアム・ノードハウス（2018年ノーベル経済学賞受賞者）が提唱した技術であるカーボン・マーケット・クラブを形成することができます。これにより、加盟国がパリ協定で求められる実際の削減を取引や税制で示し参加していることを実証できる国に取引を限定できます。11 グリーンエネルギー移行が勢いを増し、各国がネットゼロ政策を実施するにつれて、炭素の価格は上昇するでしょう。炭素価格が上がると、企業の排出に関連するコスト負担が増加します。市場参加者が炭素価格が記録的水準に達した後も上昇を続けると見込む中で、EUで事業を行う企業にとってCCUS技術を採用するインセンティブは強まり、炭素税に直面する企業にとっても同様に導入の動機が高まります。12 要点： 緑の金属価格の急騰、設備投資の不足、そして低炭素未来のために採掘される金属に伴うESGリスクを踏まえると、我々は市場の織り込み以上に化石燃料が低炭素社会への移行で大きな役割を果たすと予想します。各国が気候目標を達成しつつ化石燃料を利用できるようにするためには、CCUS技術の利用が重要です。CCUSの普及を高めるためには、再生可能エネルギーの事例にならい、需要が確立するまで政府がこの技術を補助する必要があります。また、ETSや炭素税の導入促進も行動を触発するために必要です。   Robert P. Ryan チーフ・コモディティ＆エネルギー・ストラテジスト rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam リサーチ・アソシエイト コモディティ＆エネルギー戦略 ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com     コモディティ概況 エネルギー： 強気 記事作成時点で、ブレント原油価格は70ドル/バレルの水準に迫っていました。これはIEAが2021年後半の強い需要回復を評価したことを受けた動きです（チャート9）。IEAは2021年前半の需要増加見通しを27万b/d引き下げましたが、インドやOECDアメリカ、欧州でのCOVID-19による需要減少が主因であり、後半の見積りは維持しており、今年の総需要増は540万b/dとしています。EIAも今年の需要増を540万b/d、来年は370万b/dと見込んでいます。OPECは2021年通年の需要増を600万b/dのまま維持しました。OPEC 2.0は6月1日に再び会合し、我々の見立てでは市場により多くのサイドライン生産を戻すことを検討するでしょう。来週のレポートで需給バランスと価格見通しを更新する予定です。 ベースメタル： 強気 記事作成時点で、CME/COMEXのスポット銅価格はおおむね4.80ドル/ポンド付近で推移していました。チリでの増税の脅威（そのような税を求める法案が議会を通過しつつあること）、鉱山労働者のストライキの可能性、そして採鉱で使用される硫酸の不足（パンデミックによる製油所の稼働減少が原因で世界的に硫黄供給が減少したことによる）などが、ブルームバーグによれば銅を強く買われた状態にしています。当社の12月限COMEX銅の目標は5ドル/ポンド（LMEで約11,000ドル/トン）です。物理的な供給不足が在庫取り崩しを強い続け、金利構造をバックワーディテートさせると予想しているため、当社は2022年カレンダー物のCOMEX銅をロング、2023年をショートのポジションを継続しています。 貴金属： 強気 水曜日の米国のCPIデータは、4月の総合インフレ率が前年同月比で4.2％上昇したことを示しました。これは2008年以来の高水準ですが、この上昇はベース効果（昨年の同時期にパンデミックで物価が下落していたため）による部分もあると考えられます。物価上昇は金をインフレヘッジとしての需要を高めますが、もしこのデータを受けてFRBが金利を引き上げれば米ドル高となり、金価格にはマイナスに働きます（チャート10）。ただし我々はFRBがこの報告で指針を急激に転換するとは予想しておらず、中銀がこの一時的な上振れと扱うと見ています。昨日の終値時点でCOMEXの金は1,835.9ドル/オンスで取引されていました。 農産物／ソフト商品： 中立 記事作成時点で、シカゴ大豆市場は水曜日に発表予定のWorld Agriculture Supply and Demand Estimates（WASDE）レポートを前に上昇していました。先物の期近は約16.70ドル/ブッシェルで、日中で2％上昇していました。今月のWASDEには、2021/22作付年に対するUSDAの初の需要見積りが含まれ、需要の強まりにより供給が引き締まるとの見通しが市場で予想されています。 チャート9 ブレント価格が上昇中 ブレント価格が上昇中 チャート10 新型コロナの不確実性が金の需要を押し上げる可能性がある 新型コロナの不確実性が金の需要を押し上げる可能性がある   脚注 1     詳細はWorld Bankが2016年7月に公表したカーボン・マーケット・クラブと新パリ体制を参照してください。こうした技術の知的および計算の枠組みは、2018年ノーベル経済学賞受賞者のウィリアム・ノードハウスによって開発されました。 2     今週IEAが公表した再生可能エネルギー市場アップデート、2021年および2022年の見通し.pdfを参照してください。 3    WoodMacは「追加の大規模な投資がない限り、2024年以降生産は減少する。需要の伸びと相まって、この生産減少は理論的には2040年までに約16Mtの不足をもたらすだろう」と指摘しています。コンサルタントは、この期間の銅需要を満たすためにさらに3,250億～5,000億ドル以上の投資が必要になると見積もっています。詳細は供給成長の欠如は銅業界にしっぺ返しをもたらすか？（woodmac.com、2021年3月23日）をご覧ください。 4    当社が2021年4月29日に公表した需要拡大に伴う再生可能エネルギーのESGリスクの増大を参照してください。ces.bcaresearch.comで入手可能です。 5    脚注4を参照してください。 6    Reutersが公表した低炭素世界には1.7兆ドルの鉱業投資が必要をご覧ください。 7     この方法は石油生産を増加させるために用いられます。炭化水素の特性を変え、貯留層圧力を回復し、貯留層内での油の置換を促進します。EORを用いることで、石油会社は貯留層中の原油原始埋蔵量の30％から60％を回収することができます。詳細は米国エネルギー省が公表する増進回収をご覧ください。 8    ReutersのコラムCO2排出制限と経済開発を参照してください。 9    World Oilの記事米国のLNG業者はグリーンなイメージ向上のためにカーボン回収を唱えるをご覧ください。 10   IEAのカーボン回収・利用・貯留に関する特別報告（Energy Technology Perspectives 2020の一部）をご覧ください。 11    上の脚注1を参照してください。 12    Financial Timesの記事EUで汚染のコストが急騰、炭素価格が記録的な€50に達するを参照してください。 投資見解とテーマ 戦略的推奨事項 タクティカル・トレード コモディティ価格および取引参考表 2021年にクローズした取引 クローズした取引の要約 より高いインフレが到来 より高いインフレが到来