Persian (Gulf)

Special Report

Highlights Iraq remains vital for the security of the Middle East and global oil supply; Sectarian tensions in Iraq have peaked, but risk of Shia-on-Shia violence is rising, which could imperil the all-important export facilities in Basra; With the Islamic State defeated, Iran's military support is no longer needed; This opens a window of opportunity for Saudi Arabia and its Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) allies to make diplomatic inroads in the country; Stability and security are positive for investments in Iraq's energy sector, but official targets are overly ambitious. BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy expects oil prices to push higher ahead of the likely loss of 2 million bbl/day of exports on the back of U.S.-imposed sanctions against Iran and the all-but-certain collapse of Venezuela's economy. Feature "Divisiveness is not good for the people ... the policy of exclusion and the policy of marginalization must end in Iraq ... All Iraqis should live under one roof and for one goal." Muqtada Al Sadr, April 2012 "Competition between parties and election candidates must center on economic, educational, and social service programs that can be realistically implemented; to be avoided are narcissism [and] inflammatory sectarian and nationalist rhetoric" Ayatollah Al Sistani, May 4, 2018 "Say no to sectarianism, no to corruption, no to division of shares, no to terrorism and no to occupation" Muqtada Al Sadr's call for a peaceful million man "Day of Rage," September 2018 Moqtada Al Sadr's Sairuun party's unlikely victory in Iraq's May elections came as a surprise. The former leader of the Mahdi Army - a militia that terrorized U.S. forces - has reinvented himself into a champion of reform and a counterweight against foreign influence in the country, particularly Iranian. His political success is due to his ability to recognize that Iraq is at a crossroads. Attitudes and priorities are shifting on several levels: Iraq is turning away from sectarian politics after a decade and a half of internal strife. The security threat from the Islamic State has been eliminated, with nationalism replacing sectarianism. Iran-Saudi tensions are ramping up again at the same time that the U.S. is putting pressure on Iran by reimposing a global oil embargo. Iraq, a buffer state between Iran and Saudi Arabia, will become a battlefield between the two regional powers, but the battlefield may be shifting from the military theatre to the economic one. These junctures provide both opportunities to transition the country to a new stage, as well as challenges in cleansing the system of its old demons. The composition of Iraq's new government matters. It will ultimately determine whether these impulses will pave the way for a stronger, more unified country, or whether Iraq will remain consumed with internal battles. Unity is required for Baghdad to boost its oil output in the way it hopes. The Iraqi economy's relationship with oil markets is two-sided. Not only is its income dependent on oil, but global oil markets are also reliant on Iraqi supplies at a time when global spare capacity is razor-thin. Given that Iraq is currently the fifth-largest crude oil producer in the world - the second-largest within OPEC - and accounts for 5% of global crude oil supply, Iraq's production ambitions are important for global oil markets (Chart 1). Chart 1Iraqi Upstream Production Matters As such, when Baghdad announced its ambitions to raise capacity to 6.5 million bbl/day by 2022, the energy markets were paying attention. If this capacity increase translates to a rise in actual production, additional Iraqi oil by the end of the four-year period would roughly equal 2 million bbl/day. This is equivalent to BCA's Commodity and Energy Strategy's expectation of a loss of exports from the two main risks to energy markets today: the Iranian oil embargo and the internal strife in Venezuela (Chart 2).1 (Of course, the Iraqi production would not come in time to prevent the run-up in prices that we expect as a result of the latter two risks, given that they are immediate risks whereas Iraq will take four years to ramp up.) Chart 2Losses From Venezuela and Iran Will Push Prices Higher The doubling of Iraq's production over the past decade occurred despite constant sabotage of its oilfields, pumping stations, and pipelines by insurgents. It would seem that the restoration of security offers an optimistic outlook for Iraq's production plan, especially given Iraq's naturally competitive conditions (Table 1). But there is no certainty in Baghdad's ability to reach these targets. Iraqi output is now operating near full capacity (Chart 3). The past decade and a half have wreaked havoc on its infrastructure and discouraged investments needed to develop its fertile oilfields. Table 1Operating Costs Are Competitive Chart 3Not Much Idle Capacity In this report, we assess whether political conditions will support stability in Iraq. The alternative scenario, one where Iraq becomes a physical battlefield between Iran and Saudi Arabia, would not only snuff out any hope of an oil export boom, but could also become yet another risk to global oil supply. Political Will Is Not Enough To Boost Oil Output An expansion of oil production capacity would bring much needed revenue to aid in Iraq's rebuilding efforts. Iraq's economy is highly dependent on the energy sector, even relative to other major oil-producing Middle Eastern peers (Chart 4). The rebound in oil prices over the past couple of years has therefore helped support Iraq's budget, with a surplus expected this year for the first time since 2012 (Chart 5). Extra revenue has, in turn, helped grease the wheels of stability and reconciliation in the country. Chart 4Addicted to Petrodollars Chart 5Higher Prices Will Help Flip the Deficit However, political will is not a sufficient condition. Rather, the success of the plan to expand capacity is contingent on Baghdad overcoming several key constraints: While the threat from Islamic State has for the most part subsided, security and the potential for sabotage remain risks to Iraq's current oil infrastructure. Ongoing disputes over the status of Kurds in northern Iraq - risks that contains almost 20% of proven reserves - raise the potential for conflict. Additionally, oil infrastructure may become vulnerable to sabotage from Iran, or Iranian-backed militants, if there is a souring of relationships (see more on that below). Discontent among Iraqis in the southern oil-rich region also raises the probability of disruptions. Over the weekend, protesters upset with corruption and poor services gathered near the Nahr Bin Omar oilfield. Clashes between Basna protesters and security forces have already led to six deaths over the past three days. Iraq's current network of pipelines, pumping stations, and storage facilities - many of which are damaged beyond repair - are not capable of handling greater volumes. An expansion of the export capacity is required for Iraq to be able to benefit from future increases in production. Such an expansion will require FDI, which in turn will require stability and a political climate conducive to large-scale, long-term investments. There are currently two main functioning oil export hubs - the northern network of pipelines, and the southern shipping route (Map 1). Map 1Iraq's Oil Infrastructure On Shaky Ground In northern Iraq, the Iraq-Ceyhan pipeline is connected to Kurdish lines at the city of Fishkabur and carries northern oil to the Turkish port (Table 2). Table 2Defunct Pipelines Leave Room For Improvement Northern exports account for ~15% of Iraq's total crude exports (Chart 6). While the Fishkabur-Ceyhan pipeline has a nameplate capacity of 1.5 million bbl/day, usable capacity is reportedly significantly lower, constraining Iraq's northern exports. Chart 6Southern Crude Accounts For Bulk Of Iraqi Exports Although the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) has its own network of pipelines transporting crude from fields in the Khurmala Dome and Tawke fields to Ceyhan via Fishkabur, the main infrastructure on the Baghdad-controlled side - the Kirkuk-Fishkabur pipeline - has been targeted by insurgents and has slowly been losing capacity. Its pre-2003 0.9 million bbl/day capacity was reduced to 0.25 million bbl/ day in 2013. Finally, it was closed down in March 2014 rendering it inoperable. Exports from Kirkuk have been on hold following Iraq's takeover of the oilfield in October 2017, as the Iraqi government does not have the infrastructure to bypass Kurdish pipelines. As a result, exports through Ceyhan have collapsed to almost half their pre-October levels.2 The closure of the Kirkuk pipeline undercuts Iraq's ambitions to increase Kirkuk's oil production to 1 million bbl/day. This has been partially mitigated by an agreement for Iraq to truck 0.03-0.06 million bbl/day of Kirkuk oil to Iran in exchange for oil in the south. Ultimately, the vulnerability of northern exports highlights the need for more reliable transportation channels. As such, the Iraqi government announced plans late last year to build a new pipeline from Baiji to Fishkabur, replacing the defunct Kirkuk pipeline in transporting oil to Ceyhan. Furthermore, the idea of using KRG pipelines to export Kirkuk's oil was floated during meetings between current Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi and former President of the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) Masoud Barzani, and thus could be a possibility going forward. A positive outcome would require a thaw in Iraqi-Kurdish relations and ultimately hinges on the outcome of government formation in Baghdad. Thus, the northern infrastructure - which currently has a nameplate export capacity of 1.5 million bbl/day - underlines the vulnerability of Iraq's exports, not only to sabotage, but also to internal strife. Export capacity from southern Iraq, which accounts for 85% of oil exports, will also require expansion. Pipelines between the oilfields, storage facilities, and export terminals on the Persian Gulf are also susceptible to damage. However, authorities have been expanding export capacity there. The authorities currently operate five single point moorings, bringing total export capacity from the Persian Gulf to 4.6 million bbl/day. The Iraqi Pipeline to Saudi Arabia (IPSA), which could support export capacity from the south, runs through the Arabian Peninsula to the Red Sea. However, it has not been operating since the first Gulf War, and the Saudis have converted their section of the pipeline to transport natural gas. Talks of a revival of this line have recently surfaced. An improvement in Saudi-Iraqi relations would certainly be a positive sign for southern export capacity, providing another outlet for any potential supply increase. Currently there are no operating export pipelines going westward.3 The Kirkuk-Baniyas pipelines were damaged in 2003, and while Iraq and Syria agreed to replace these pipelines with two new ones in 2010, no progress has been made yet. Given instability in Syria, this is unlikely to happen anytime soon. However, there is a plan in place to create a new line between Basra and Aqaba in Jordan with an export capacity of 1 million bbl/day. This would allow Iraq to transport just under a quarter of its total exports via the Red Sea, rather than the Persian Gulf. In terms of internal transportation, the Iraq Strategic Pipeline is a pair of bi-directional lines that run vertically between the country's most important oil-producing regions. However, it has been damaged and currently operates only northward, from Basra to Karbala. Since there are no operational pipelines to the north under Iraqi control, it is currently of limited use. In other words, the oil is stuck in Iraq. Increases in water injection facilities are also required to maintain pressures in the reservoir and boost oil production. Natural gas, which Iraq currently flares, could technically be used as an alternative to water injection. Iraq is working towards reducing gas flaring and hopes to use the captured gas for electricity. The Common Seawater Supply Project (CSSP) aims to treat and transport 5-7.5 million bbl/day of seawater from the Persian Gulf to oil production facilities. 1.5 bbl of water injected are required to produce 1 bbl of oil in the major southern oilfields. However, since the termination of talks with Exxon Mobil Corp on the construction of the facility in June (after two years of negotiations!) there has been no progress on this project. It will likely be awarded to another company, but the lack of clarity regarding CSSP's completion date adds uncertainty to Iraq's expansion plans. Electricity shortages also put expansion plans in peril. Iraq needs significant upgrades to its electricity grid. Given that the oil and gas industry is the top industrial customer of electricity, a stable connection is required to boost output. The World Bank reports that in 2011, an average of 40 outages occurred each month, affecting 77% of firms in Iraq. Bottom Line: Export capacity of Iraq's northern pipeline to Ceyhan currently stands at 1.5 million bbl/day, while its southern ports allow for 4.6 million bbl/day to be shipped through the Persian Gulf. These figures are generous. Usable capacity is reportedly much lower. Iraq has plans to increase its western export capacity to 1 million bbl/day through a new pipeline to Aqaba. Nevertheless, this infrastructure is vulnerable to sabotage by residual insurgents, as well as to Iraq-Kurdish and Iraq-Iran disputes. Iraq's Shifting Interests... Policymakers in Baghdad face the challenge of ensuring sufficient water and electricity not only for the country's oilfields but also for the population. Electricity shortages triggered the recent protests in Basra. Demonstrators have been calling for improved access to these essentials, along with job opportunities and a crackdown on corruption. Furthermore, there is increased evidence that Iraqis have become disillusioned with the political elite and are losing confidence in the political "establishment," such as it is (Chart 7). Transparency International rates Iraq as "highly corrupt" and ranked it 169 out of the 180 countries in its 2017 Corruption Perceptions Index. It stands out even among its highly corrupt Middle Eastern peers (Chart 8). Chart 7Iraqis Lack Confidence In Their Leaders Chart 8Corruption Is Rampant Iraqis fear that even as their country exploits its oil, they will remain destitute. Although the southern region contains three-quarters of Iraq's oil reserves (Table 3), it has the highest poverty rate (Chart 9). Table 3Southern Oilfields Are Iraq's Crown Jewel... Chart 9...Yet Poverty Is Widespread There Anti-establishment sentiment is rising, as reflected in the most recent parliamentary elections in May 2018. Voter turnout was reported at 44%, down from 60% in the previous two elections. The success of Moqtada Al Sadr's Sairuun coalition in winning the majority of seats highlights this shift in allegiance (Box 1). While Iraq's demographic makeup remains heterogeneous, voters are no longer instinctively looking for sectarian parties to represent them. Rather, they want policymakers to resolve basic needs like electricity, water, and corruption. Protesters in Basra are therefore not chanting sectarian slogans, but rather demanding basic services and jobs (Chart 10). Box 1 Ma'a Salama Sectarianism? In surprising results from the May parliamentary elections, the Sairuun coalition - an unlikely combination of communists, leftists, and centrist groups, led by firebrand Shia cleric Moqtada Al Sadr - attained the largest number of votes (Table 4). Nevertheless, it was not able to garner enough seats to secure an outright majority necessary to form the government on its own. Instead, alliances are now being forged as parties scramble to establish the largest coalition group. Of the 329 seats in Iraq's Council of Representatives, just over half are represented by the main Shia parties. The challenge for them this time around is that the five main Shia blocs, which were previously united, have split into two opposing camps. Table 4Politicians Are Picking Up On Shifting Trends The Sadr-backed Sairuun coalition, along with (1) Prime Minister Abadi's Nasr al Iraq, (2) the conservative Hikma bloc, and (3) the Ayad Allawi, centrist Wataniyya bloc have already announced a preliminary agreement to form a coalition as well as a commitment to take an anti-sectarian approach. Several smaller Sunni, Christian, Turkmen, and Yazidi parties have pledged that they would support the non-sectarian, nationalist, bloc of parties. This brings their seats to 187. At the other end are the pro-Iranian Fateh and Dawlet al Qanun blocs, which recently announced that they had formed the largest bloc. The two main Kurdish parties are not included in either alliance. Together they hold 43 seats, giving them the power to be the tie-breakers. They have drafted a list of demands and stated their willingness to join whichever bloc is able to guarantee their fulfillment. Given Maliki's previously divisive rule, we assign a greater probability to the scenario in which they join the core coalition headed by Sadr, as several Sunnis have already done so. The danger of a nationalist, cross-sectarian movement is that it would signal the rebirth of an independent Iraq, which is not necessarily in the interest of its two powerful neighbors, Saudi Arabia and Iran. Iran, in particular, would feel its dominant position weaken and might want to instigate sectarian conflict in order to arrest the nationalist, Sadr-led movement. This would definitely matter to global investors as a Shia-on-Shia conflict in Iraq would geographically take place around Basra, the main shipment route for 85% of the country's oil exports. Chart 10Iraqis Want Better Services Prime Minister al-Abadi has also become more responsive to people's needs. He recently sacked the electricity minister and promised to fund electricity and water projects. Furthermore, amid demands for employment opportunities in the oil sector and accusations of corruption, the Iraqi cabinet recently announced a regulation requiring that at least 50% of foreign oil company employees be Iraqi citizens. Given that the voice of discontent in Iraq is getting louder, we expect the government to uphold these promises. Pacifying protesters will increase stability, reduce risks of violence and disruptions, and build support for the government. Nevertheless, many voters still see the prime minister as part of the corrupt political elite. Bottom Line: Iraqis are demanding their basic rights, and this is taking the form of increased pro¬tests, especially in the south where key oilfields are located. The schism among the main Shia parties along the nationalist/Iran axis suggests that Iraq has evolved beyond the purely sectarian political system. This is a positive in the long term as it means that the country can focus on material issues that matter to Iraqis. However, in the short term, the Iran-aligned Shia groups could spur violence, especially if they realize that the sectarian model of politics is waning. ...And Shifting Allegiance? Apart from the shift in focus toward issues-based politics, the election also highlights a pivot in allegiance away from Iran. Sadr's Sairuun bloc is critical of Iranian interference, and while it was initially open to joining forces with Amiri's Iran-backed Fateh coalition, it ultimately allied with the more secular Shia parties. Iran's recent role in Iraq has been mainly through military aid. It proved vital in driving the Islamic State militants out of Iraq - training, equipping, and funding Iraqi militias who fought against the terrorist group. Iran-backed militias united in 2014 to form the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) and eventually defeated Islamic State. The PMF, estimated to be between 100,000-150,000 strong, was officially recognized as part of the Iraqi army earlier this year. However, the loyalty of the Shia militias to Baghdad remains unclear. Furthermore, when Washington expressed reluctance in arming Iraq with U.S. military equipment to fight terrorist groups in early 2014, Iran stepped up and signed a deal to sell arms and ammunition worth $195 million (Table 5). Iran also sent its own troops to support in fights against insurgencies - dispatching 2,000 troops to Central Iraq in June 2014. This military collaboration culminated in the signing of a July 23, 2017 agreement between Iran and Iraq for military cooperation in the fight against terrorism and extremism. Table 5Iran's Military Support Was Needed In The Past... Yet with the curbing of Islamic State, Iraq is preparing to begin a new chapter - rebuilding its war-torn cities. In doing so, its needs will shift from military support to financial support, potentially shifting its allegiance from Iran to Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, Iran's current economic situation - especially with the anticipated impact of U.S. sanctions - will leave fewer funds available for it to direct towards Iraq. The electricity crisis earlier this summer symbolizes the shifting dynamic. Iran, which has been supplying southern Iraq with electricity, announced it would no longer provide Iraq with power, citing its dissatisfaction with the accumulation of unpaid bills. Iran itself is experiencing electricity shortages and is no longer willing or able to sacrifice for Iraq, which it fears is drifting outside its sphere of control. Iran eventually took back this move and restarted its electricity exports. However, this occurred only after the Iraqi government sent a delegation to Saudi Arabia to negotiate an agreement to supply electricity to southern Iraq. The Saudis also offered to build a solar power plant to provide electricity to Iraq at a quarter of the Iranian price. Baghdad therefore used the crisis to signal to Tehran that it has other options, including a closer economic relationship with Iran's chief rival, Saudi Arabia. This emerging rift was also apparent during the International Conference for Iraq's Reconstruction, hosted in Kuwait, where Iraq hoped to secure $88 billion worth of funds. There, Iraq obtained $30 billion in pledges toward rebuilding its economy (Chart 11). While Iraq's Arab neighbors jointly pledged over $10 billion, Iran - despite being present at the conference - failed to guarantee any funds. Later it offered Iraq a $3 billion credit line. Chart 11...But Now Iraq Needs Monetary Support Iran is not only limited by the dire state of its economy. Protests in Iran earlier this year partly focused on Tehran's foreign policy expenses, i.e. its support of various loyal regimes around the region. This "loyalty" costs money that Iranians believe could be better spent on their domestic needs. As such, Iranian policymakers will be wary of committing more funding to Iraq, as it could be seen as wasteful by restless voters at home. What's more, Iraq's Arab GCC neighbors have both the willingness and the ability to ally with Iraq and, in turn, to curb Iran's influence in the region. Bottom Line: Stronger ties with its Arab neighbors - and the accompanying funds - are what Iraq needs right now. Iraq requires another $58 billion towards its reconstruction efforts. Its southern neighbors can help it get there. Whether this will transpire hinges on Iran's ability to infiltrate Iraq's political elite. Given that Iraqi people have become disillusioned with many of these leaders, Iran will likely face a bigger challenge this time around. Investment Implications: Short-Term Pain For Long-Term Gain Since 2011, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has stressed the emerging Saudi-Iranian proxy war as the main regional dynamic.4 With the U.S. "deleveraging" out of the Middle East, the field is open for regional power dynamics. The result is a "security dilemma," in which Saudi and Iranian attempts to improve their defenses appear offensive to the other side, resulting in a vicious cycle of distrust. The Trump administration has deepened the tensions by ending the Obama administration détente with Iran. Lower oil revenue will limit Iran's ability to influence the Middle East through its proxies, including in Iraq. Iran may decide that Iraq is lost. At that point, it may conclude that if it cannot own Iraq, it must break it. Recently, Reuters reported that Iran has moved short-range ballistic missiles into Iraq in order to threaten Saudi Arabia and Israel, in case it needs to retaliate against a U.S. attack against its nuclear facilities.5 While the report was strongly denied by Iran, it suggests that Tehran could be trying to sow discord in Iraq, or even that its operatives are working with impunity in Iraq. Iran's pain is ultimately Saudi Arabia's gain. An Iranian economy battered by the imposition of sanctions will give way to increased Saudi influence in Iraq. The oil-rich GCC countries certainly have the coffers to incentivize such a switch. In offering to fill the funding gaps of its less fortunate neighbors, Saudi Arabia has already won the allegiance of other strategic regional partners such as Egypt, Pakistan, and Sudan. In 2016, amid economic turmoil in Egypt, Saudi Arabia signed agreements worth over $40 billion to support Egypt (Table 6). This does not include financing from other GCC allies. The UAE and Kuwait also support Egypt's economy in a significant fashion. Table 6Saudi Arabia Is No Stranger To Purchasing Allies Similar financial backing in Iraq would go a long way towards filling the $58 billion funding gap for its reconstruction. The quid pro quo would be the backing of Saudi Arabia's regional political agenda, which includes curbing Iranian influence. Not only would such investment accelerate the eventual increase in Iraqi oil production. It would also curb Iran's ability to retaliate through the region, both by removing an important ally and by cutting off Syria and Lebanese Hezbollah geographically from Tehran. Domestic Iraqi politics are therefore critical for global investors. If Iraq forms a nationalist, non-sectarian government over the next several months, it will degrade Iran's ability to influence the country. At that point, Iran may either lash out against the new Baghdad government and try to create domestic strife through its proxies - the battle-hardened Shia militias - or it may be pressed into negotiations with the U.S., lest it lose more allies in the region. If Iran choses to lash out against Iraq, we suspect that it will do so through attacks and sabotage against Iraqi infrastructure. This could present an additional tailwind to oil prices over the next several months. Any additional risk premium on the cost of a barrel of oil would be a boon for Iran as it deals with a loss of exports due to sanctions. Such a campaign of sabotage, however, would ensure that Baghdad firmly moves outside the Iranian sphere in the long term, which could open up the potential for Saudi Arabia and its GCC allies to invest in the country. In the short term, therefore, there is further risk to global oil supply as the shifting political dynamics in Iraq will put the country squarely in the middle of the ongoing Saudi-Iranian proxy war, right where it has always been. In the long term, we believe that Iranian influence in Iraq has peaked and will wane going forward. This opens up the opportunity for Baghdad to rely on Saudi Arabia and GCC countries for funding. This could be a boon for global oil supply over the next decade. Of course, much will hinge on whether Saudi Arabia is willing to finance the development of Iraqi oil fields. Oil produced in those fields would compete directly for market access with Saudi's own production. If Saudi Arabia decides to look out for its own, short-term, economic interests, then Iraq may be limited in terms of funding its development, or even be thrust back into Iran's orbit. Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist Geopolitical Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Special Report, "Re Oil Demand: Fed Policy Trumps Tariffs," August 30, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 Prior to the takeover, Kirkuk oil was being transported to Fishkabur via KRG pipelines, which the Iraqi government can no longer access. 3 The Kirkuk-Haifa line has been defunct since 1948. 4 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy and Commodity & Energy Strategy Special Report, "Riyadh's Oil Gambit," dated October 11, 2011, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see John Irish and Ahmed Rasheed, "Exclusive: Iran moves missiles to Iraq in warning to enemies," Reuters, dated August 31, 2018, available at reuters.com.

Highlights Our antennae are twitching wildly, as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) walks back a widely telegraphed commitment to surge production. This occurs against the backdrop of a possible loss of as much as 2mm b/d in exports from Iran and Venezuela next year, with demand expected to remain fairly strong. U.S. President Donald Trump remains silent. We believe the proximate cause of KSA's reversal boils down to one or all of the following: President Trump told KSA to expect an SPR release ahead of November mid-terms; KSA found it difficult to maintain higher production; or Short-term demand for KSA's output is falling, so they reduced production. We have questioned the ability of KSA to sustain production above 10.5mm b/d for an extended period in the past. However, we believe July's 200k b/d cut was produced by a combination of No. 1 and No. 3. We expect KSA to build storage ahead of Iran sanctions. On the back of our updated balances modeling we are maintaining our 2H18 Brent ensemble forecast of $70/bbl, and raising our 2019 forecast to $80/bbl from $75/bbl (Chart of the Week): The front-loaded production increase we expected from OPEC 2.0 could be less than expected. Highlights Energy: Overweight. The U.S. EIA reported U.S. crude and product inventories rose 17.4mm barrels for the week ended August 10, 2018. Markets traded sharply lower as a result, falling more than 3% in WTI and 2% in Brent. As we went to press, October Brent was trading just above $70/bbl. We are maintaining our $70/bbl Brent forecast for 2H18. Base Metals: Neutral. Union leaders at BHP's Escondida mine in Chile, the largest in the world, will take proposed contract terms to members this week.1 We were stopped out of our tactical Dec18 copper call spread with a 10.2% loss. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold remains under pressure as the broad trade-weighted USD rises. We remain long as a portfolio hedge. Ags/Softs: Underweight. USDA export data show year-to-date wheat and soybean exports are down 20% and 10% y/y in the Oct17 - Jun18 period. Feature Forward guidance from OPEC 2.0's leadership and its predecessor, the regular old OPEC, has not been helpful of late.2 This complicates our balances assessment this month (Chart of the Week), and raises the odds volatility will increase sooner than we expected. Chart of the Week2H18 Brent Forecast Stays At $70/bbl, 2019 Moved Up To $80/bbl KSA's reversal in July of its earlier, widely telegraphed decision to sharply raise production in response to aggressive tweeting from U.S. President Donald Trump beginning in May - to as much as 11mm b/d from just over 10mm b/d in the first five months of this year - was followed by an abrupt output cut of ~ 200k b/d last month. Last month, we expected KSA's crude production to average 10.60mm b/d in 2H18, and 10.50mm b/d next year. In our current balances estimate (Table 1), we now expect the Kingdom's output to average 10.28mm b/d in 2H18 and 10.35mm b/d in 2019, down 300k b/d and 150k b/d, respectively. Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d) (Base Case Balances) Russia, OPEC 2.0's other putative leader, also is complicating assessments of liquids production by the producer coalition. Given the signaling it and KSA were providing over the past couple of months, we expected Russia to raise production 80k b/d in 2H18 to 11.27mm b/d, and by 160k b/d in 2019 to 11.35mm b/d. We still expect Russia to raise its production and revised our baseline estimates to 11.32mm b/d and to 11.43mm b/d for this year and next, respectively. However, it is difficult to reconcile our expectation with the 11.13mm b/d 2H18 liquids production expected by OPEC for Russia in its August Monthly Oil Market Report (MOMR), as we are highly confident Russia signed off on that estimate before it was published. Chart 2Physical Deficit Worsens Our global liquids supply estimate for 2H18 now stands at 101.08mm b/d, down 680k b/d from last month's estimate. For 2019, we lowered our supply estimate by 800k b/d to 101.01mm b/d. But this could end up overstating supply, given what we're seeing from OPEC 2.0 presently. On the demand side, we've lowered our 2018 and 2019 expectations slightly - to 1.67mm b/d and 1.62mm b/d, respectively, or ~ 50k b/d on average versus our previous estimates. This is still relatively stout demand growth - supported by still-strong global trade, particularly in the EM economies - which means storage will be forced to draw harder next year than we expected even a month ago (Chart 2). Physical Deficit Worsens In 2019 We expected OPEC 2.0's supply increase would persist at a higher level during 2H18, which would allow refiners to build precautionary inventories going into next year. This no longer is a tenable assumption, given what is being reported for OPEC 2.0's largest producers - KSA and Russia. In addition, we have amended our base case supply model, to reflect the loss of 1mm b/d of Iranian exports to U.S. sanctions for most of next year; we have this occurring in 250k b/d increments in the Nov18 - Feb 19 period, leaving production from March 2019 on at 2.8mm b/d. This replaces our earlier assumption of a 500k b/d by the end of 1H19. We took this action on the back of the increasingly strident rhetoric from the U.S. administration, and press reports indicating widespread compliance with the sanctions is expected - particularly reports suggesting China and India will not be looking to increase purchases of Iranian crude. Offsetting the higher Iranian export losses we foresee, our base case includes a re-start of Neutral Zone production in 2Q19.3 We expect KSA and Kuwait to each bring 175k b/d back on line, for a total of 350k b/d. It is not clear this is counted in both countries' spare capacity, but if it is, then spare capacity will become tighter within OPEC 2.0 next year. In our scenario analysis, we continue to give a relatively high weight to the loss of Venezuela's exports - anywhere from 800k to 1mm b/d - as that country's oil industry continues to degrade. Our ensemble analysis indicates OECD storage will draw more than previously estimated (Chart 3), on the back of these higher assumed Iranian export losses, and a reduction in OPEC 2.0's front-loaded production increases, particularly in 2019. As storage draws, days-forward-cover (DFC) also will contract (Chart 4). In addition to steepening the backwardation in crude forward curves, we expect implied option volatility to increase in 2019 (Chart 5). Chart 3Storage Will Draw##BR##Harder Next Year Chart 4Days-Forward-Cover##BR##Will Fall In 2019 Chart 5Implied Volatilities Will Rise,##BR##As OECD Storage Falls Ensemble Forecast Update In addition to moving the 1mm b/d loss of Iranian exports from a scenario and into our base case - offset somewhat by higher Neutral Zone production - we expect transportation bottlenecks in the Permian Basin to slow production growth in the U.S. shales even more. We have lowered our expected U.S. production growth to 1.21mm b/d this year and 1.22mm b/d in 2019, versus earlier estimates of 1.30mm b/d and 1.34mm b/d, as a result (Chart 6 shows the trajectory we expect from this scenario).4 Coupled with the lower-than-expected production increase from OPEC 2.0 and still-strong demand growth globally, this will lead to tighter markets in 2019. Chart 6Higher Volatility = Wider Expected Price Range We also are including a scenario showing a slowdown in demand growth, which takes y/y growth to 1.43mm b/d in 2018 and 2019, versus our current estimates of average growth of 1.64mm b/d over the two-year interval. Bottom Line: Numerous conflicting data have entered the oil pricing picture over the past month, which greatly complicates our analysis and forecasting. The fact that OPEC 2.0's leadership - KSA and Russia - is providing little in the way of forward guidance does not make this any easier. We admit to being puzzled by KSA's apparent decision to walk back its production increase going into 2019, when the likelihood of losing close to 2mm b/d of exports from Iran and Venezuela becomes markedly higher. Based on our current modeling we expect higher prices next year ($80/bbl vs. our earlier estimate of $75/bbl for Brent), and a steepening of the Brent and WTI backwardations next year. We continue to expect WTI to trade $6/bbl below Brent in 2H18 and 2019. The steepening backwardation will lift implied volatility, particularly next year. We remain long call option spreads along the Brent forward curve in 2019, in expectation prices and volatility will move higher. We continue to believe the balance of price risk is to the upside. However, as the lower-demand scenario in our ensemble forecast shows, an unexpected slowdown in growth can have profound effects on prices. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "Chile's Escondida union to take new labor proposal to members," published by reuters.com August 15, 2018. 2 OPEC 2.0 is the name we coined for the producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia. At the end of June, the coalition's member states agreed to increase production to bring it into line with the originally agreed deal to remove 1.8mm b/d of output from the market. 3 Please see "Kuwait, Saudi to resume output from Neutral Zone in 2019 - Toyo Engineering," published by reuters.com July 2, 2018. 4 We place our scenarios within the context of a market-generated confidence interval, which we calculate using implied volatilities derived from Brent and WTI options markets. Please see Ryan, Bob and Tancred Lidderdale (2009), "Energy Price Volatility and Forecast Uncertainty," particularly Appendix 1 beginning on p. 18, for a derivation of the confidence intervals. The article was published by the U.S. EIA. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017

Highlights The eye of the storm is passing over the oil market. OPEC 2.0's recent production increase will temporarily halt the sharp decline in OECD commercial oil inventories, allowing stocks of crude oil and refined products in member states to level off ahead of the sharp drawdowns we expect next year (Chart of the Week).1 This will keep the front of Brent's forward curve in a modest contango going into 4Q18, and suppress short-term price volatility. Thereafter, reduced OPEC 2.0 output post-U.S. midterm elections, and lower Iranian and Venezuelan exports will force OECD inventories to resume drawing sharply, backwardating Brent's forward curve and raising oil price volatility (Chart 2).2 Chart of the WeekOECD Inventories Rebuild Slightly,##BR##Then Resume Falling Next Year Chart 2Brent, WTI Implied Volatility Vs. Curve Shape:##BR##Implied Vol Is Higher At Storage Extremes Chart 3Physical Oil Deficit Returns##BR##To Oil Market Next Year Highlights Energy: Overweight. The U.S. EIA revised its estimate of OPEC spare capacity down slightly for this year - to 1.7mm b/d from 1.8mm b/d. Spare capacity for next year was raised to 1.3mm b/d from just over 1mm b/d previously. At ~1.5% of global consumption this year and next, spare capacity is chronically low. Base Metals: Neutral. Chinese policymakers could sanction new infrastructure spending and easier credit to counter slower growth related to trade tensions, Reuters reported.3 Precious Metals: Neutral. We were stopped out of our tactical long silver position with a 10% loss. Ags/Softs: Underweight. There is more evidence that U.S. ags are finding new markets. EU imports of U.S. soybeans almost quadrupled in recent weeks. This comes amid the June plunge in prices and a thawing in trade tensions, following talks between EU Commission President Juncker and President Trump late last week.4 Feature The oil market sits in the eye of a pricing storm we expect to hit later this year. Following highly vocal - and twitter-textual - jawboning by U.S. President Donald Trump, OPEC's Gulf Arab producers lifted production in June and again in July.5 Reuters survey data indicate the OPEC Cartel (including new member Congo) lifted production by 70k b/d in July, bringing output to its highest level this year (32.64mm b/d).6 KSA boosted its output to 10.6mm b/d in June, up from less than 10mm b/d in the January - May period. This likely was a combination of higher production and inventory draws. OPEC's compliance level fell to 111% of the 1.2mm b/d of cuts agreed in November 2016, versus compliance levels exceeding 150% earlier this year. This is attributed to sharp declines in Venezuela's output, sporadic losses from Libya and Nigeria, and ongoing declines in non-Gulf OPEC states. We expect Russia, the putative co-head of the OPEC 2.0 coalition, will increase production by 200k b/d in 2H18 (Table 1). Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) Global Oil Market Will Tighten Again Post-U.S. mid-term elections in November - just when the U.S. sanctions are re-imposed against Iranian crude exports - we expect OPEC 2.0 to dial back production increases made at the behest of President Trump. Continued declines in non-Gulf OPEC output, led by ongoing and deep losses in Venezuelan output, and random unplanned production outages also will contribute to a tightening on the supply side going into 2019. Rising geopolitical tensions in the Gulf will keep markets on edge, with a predisposition to push higher. This supply-side tightness will once again come up against strong global oil demand, which we estimate will grow at a 1.7mm b/d rate this year and next. We are not expecting a repeat of the evolution of prices observed following OPEC 2.0's January 2017 agreement, which cut production to reverse the massive accumulation of inventories brought about by the original cartel's market-share war launched in November 2014. This evolution is depicted in the price-decomposition model for Brent shown in Chart 4. We segmented the fundamental price drivers - i.e. demand, supply and inventories - into distinct factors, and estimated an econometric model that allows us to track whether the evolution of prices is consistent with our expectations for these factors. Chart 4Factor Decomposition For Brent Prices Our modeling indicates the 2014 - 15 decline in oil prices was driven by a not-often-seen combination of every single factor, with our OPEC Supply-and-Inventory factor accounting for the largest negative contribution to the evolution of prices during this period. Since 2017, our factor model shows Brent prices have been supported by two factors acting simultaneously together: (1) the strong compliance of OPEC 2.0 members to the coalition's production-cutting agreement, which reduced the OPEC Supply-and-Inventory factor's role, and (2) the pickup in global oil demand, particularly in EM economies, which pushed our Global Demand factor up. These effects were partly counterbalanced by the rise in our Non-OPEC Supply factor, which became the largest negative contributor to price movements, driven by strong U.S. shale production growth. Return Of Backwardation Will Spur Volatility Our ensemble forecasts for Brent in 2H18 and 2019 are $70 and $75/bbl, with WTI expected to trade $6/bbl below these levels (Chart 5). The supply-side tightening we expect, coupled with continued demand growth, will once again lead to sharp draws in OECD inventories beginning in 4Q18 and continuing into 2019, as seen in the Chart of the Week. This will steepen the backwardations in the Brent and WTI forward curves (Chart 6). Chart 5BCA Brent And##BR##WTI Forecasts Chart 6Backwardation Will Return##BR##To Brent's Forward Curve Our research shows that as the slope of the Brent and WTI forward curves steepen - i.e., backwardations become more positive in percentage terms (or contangoes become more negative) - the implied volatility of options written on these crude oil futures increases, as can be seen in Chart 2.7 All else equal, higher volatility makes options written on these crude futures more valuable. Higher Vol ... Higher Prices ... In the different scenarios we use to produce our ensemble forecast, we view the balance of risks to be on the upside. This can be seen in the different paths our scenarios cover over the next year and a half, which include physical and geopolitical variables affecting price expectations (Chart 7).8 Chart 7Higher Volatility = Wider Expected Price Range Our base case assumes the supply and demand estimates shown in Table 1, which include the loss of 500k b/d due to the re-imposition of U.S. sanctions against Iran. However, we also model the loss of 1mm b/d of Iranian exports. Furthermore, we account for the loss of ~ 800k b/d of Venezuelan exports in the event that country collapses and nothing but the 250k b/d of output required to produce refined products for the local market remains online. Lastly, we account for the Permian transportation bottlenecks preventing all of the crude produced in the Basin from getting to refiners or to export markets. In this week's publication, we also include an estimate of the 95% confidence interval derived from Brent and WTI options' implied volatilities, so that our scenarios can be placed in the context of market-derived assessments of the range in which prices will trade. ... Lower Prices ... ? In modeling these risks, we also must account for downside price risks. Most prominent among these is a resolution of the long-simmering U.S. - Iran conflict, which, from time to time, results in physical confrontation. This is an outcome markets were forced to consider earlier this week when President Trump offered to meet Iranian President Rouhani without any preconditions. Among other things, Trump suggested he would have interest in working on a nuclear-arms deal to replace the one negotiated under President Obama's watch, which he scuppered in May. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo walked this remark back later. We believe the odds of such a meeting are extremely low. The odds such meeting would lead to a resolution of animosities - or at least a working understanding between the two sides - are even lower. Even so, investors need to account for this tail risk, which, if realized could take $5 to $10/bbl out of the current oil price structure. That is, until KSA and Russia muster the OPEC 2.0 member states to again reduce production to keep prices at levels that work best for their economies. Bottom Line: Our modeling and the forecasts point to higher prices and a steepening of the backwardation in Brent and WTI forward curves. This will lead to an increase in implied volatilities for options written on these crude oil futures. For this reason, we suggest investors remain long call spreads further out the Brent forward curve in 2019, which can be found in the Strategic Recommendations table on page 10 of this publication. That said, downside risks have emerged, even if, at present, the likelihood of a diplomatic breakthrough that triggers them is remote. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 OPEC 2.0 is the name we coined for the producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia. At the end of June, the coalition's member states agreed to increase production, which we estimate will raise its output ~ 275k b/d in 2H18 (vs. 1H18). We expect a physical deficit of ~ 430k b/d in 1H19 (vs 1H18, Chart 3). 2 "Contango" and "backwardation" are terms of art in commodity markets. In oil trading, when prompt-delivery crude is priced below deferred-delivery material markets are in contango; vice versa for backwardation. 3 Please see "Exclusive: China eyes infrastructure boost to cushion growth as trade war escalates - sources," published by uk.reuters.com July 27, 2018. 4 We discussed this possibility under Option 1 in our July 26, 2018, Commodity & Energy Strategy lead article entitled "Policy Uncertainty Could Trump Ag Fundamentals." It is published by BCA Research, and is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see our Special Report entitled "U.S., OPEC Talk Oil Prices Down; Gulf Tensions Could Become Kinetic," published jointly July 19, 2018, by BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see "OPEC July oil output hits 2018 peak, but outages weigh: Reuters survey," published July 30, 2018, by uk.reuters.com. 7 Chart 2 shows the V-shaped mapping of implied volatility as a function of the slope of the forward curve - , i.e., the difference between the 1st- and 12th-nearby futures divided by the 1st -nearby future (to get the number in %) - against the at-the-money Implied Volatilities of 3rd-nearby Brent and WTI options (also in %). Our findings extend results published in Kogan et al (2009), who show realized volatilities calculated using historical settlements of crude oil futures have a similar V-shaped mapping with the slope of crude oil futures conditioned on 6th- vs. 3rd-nearby futures returns (in %). Please see Kogan, L., Livdan, D., & Yaron, A. (2009). "Oil Futures Prices in a Production Economy With Investment Constraints." The Journal of Finance, 64 (3), 1345-1375. Strictly speaking, volatility is the standard deviation of percent returns, usually measured on a per annum basis. Realized volatility uses futures prices to calculate returns and standard deviations; options' implied volatility is a parameter of an option-pricing model that is solved for once an option's premium, or price, is known (i.e., clears the market). This makes implied volatility a forward-looking market-cleared parameter, provided market participants agree the model used to calculate its value. Research shows implied volatilities do a better job of forecasting actual volatility than historical volatilities constructed using futures prices. See Ryan, Bob and Tancred Lidderdale (2009). "Energy Price Volatility and Forecast Uncertainty." U.S. Energy Information Administration. 8 We do not try to model a closure of the Strait of Hormuz or its prices implications. We do, however, consider this in our Special Report published July 19, 2018, "U.S., OPEC Talk Oil Prices Down; Gulf Tensions Could Become Kinetic," referenced above. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017

Special Report

Highlights Rising non-OPEC production and the Trump administration's successful efforts at jawboning OPEC into increasing oil production - including a not-so-subtle threat that American protection of the Cartel's Gulf Arab producers would be withheld if production weren't ramped - will keep oil prices under pressure in 2H18. Markets could become chaotic in 2019: Iran's capacity to close the Strait of Hormuz - discussed below in this Special Report written jointly by BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy - cannot be dismissed. An extended closure of the Strait - our most dire scenario - could send prices on exponential trajectories: In one simulation, above $1,000/bbl. We are keeping our forecast for 2H18 Brent at $70/bbl, unchanged from June, and lowering our 2019 expectation by $2 to $75/bbl. We expect WTI to trade $6/bbl below Brent. Rising geopolitical uncertainty will widen the range in which oil prices trade - i.e., it will lift volatility. Energy: Overweight. We are moving to a tactically neutral weighting, while maintaining our strategic overweight recommendation. We are closing our Dec18 Brent $65 vs. $70/bbl call spread but are retaining long call-spread exposures in 2019 along the Brent forward curve. Base Metals: Neutral. Contract renegotiations at Chile's Escondida copper mine are yet to be resolved. The union rejected BHP's proposal late last week, and threatened to vote for a strike unless substantial changes were made. Failure to reach a labor deal at the Escondida mine led to a 44-day strike last year, and an extension of the contract. This agreement expires at the end of this month. Precious Metals: Neutral. Increasing real rates in the U.S. and a stronger USD are offsetting safe-haven demand for gold, which is down 10% from its 2018 highs of $1360/oz. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The Chinese agriculture ministry lowered its forecast for 2018/19 soybean imports late last week to 93.85 mm MT from 95.65 mm MT. This is in line with its adjustment to consumption this year, now forecast at 109.23 from 111.19 mm MT. Tariffs are expected to incentivize Chinese consumers to prefer alternative proteins - e.g., rapeseed - and to replace U.S. soybean imports with those from South America. Feature U.S. President Donald Trump jawboned OPEC Cartel members - particularly its Gulf Arab members - into raising production. This was accompanied with a none-too-subtle threat implying continued U.S. protection of the Gulf Arab states was at risk if oil production were not lifted.1 OPEC, particularly KSA, responded by lifting production and pledging to keep it at an elevated level. In addition, non-OPEC production growth has been particularly strong this year, and will remain so. These combined production increases will contribute to a modest rebuilding of inventories in 2H18, as markets prepare for the loss of as much as 1 MMb/d of Iranian oil exports beginning in November (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekOECD Inventory##BR##Depletion Will Slow Chart 2Global Balances Will Loosen,##BR##As Higher Supply Meets Steady Demand Estimated 2H18 total OPEC production rose a net 130k b/d, led by a 180k b/d increase on the part of KSA, which will average just under 10.6 MMb/d in the second half of the year. Non-OPEC production for 2H18 was revised upward by 180k b/d in our balances models - based on historical data from the U.S. EIA and OPEC - led by the U.S. shales, which were up close to 700k b/d over 1Q18 levels. This led to a combined increase in global production of 310k b/d in 2H18. With demand growth remaining at 1.7 MMb/d y/y for 2018 and 2019, we expect the higher output from OPEC and non-OPEC sources to loosen physical balances in 2H18 (Chart 2 and Table 1).2 Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d) (Base Case Balances) In and of itself, increased production will reverse some of the depletion of OECD inventories targeted by OPEC 2.0 in its effort to rebalance the market. All else equal, this would be bearish for prices. However, we are keeping our price forecast for 2H18 unchanged from last month - $70/bbl for Brent in 2H18 - and lowering our expectation for Brent to $75/bbl in 2019. This adjustment in next year's expectation reflects our belief that this round of increased production by OPEC 2.0 arguably is being undertaken specifically to rebuild storage ahead of the re-imposition of export sanctions by the U.S. against Iran. Re-imposing sanctions unwinds a deal negotiated by the U.S. and its allies in 2015, which relaxed nuclear-related sanctions against Iran in exchange for commitments to scale back its involvement across the Middle East in the affairs of Arab states with restive Shia populations.3 The re-imposition of sanctions by the U.S. against Iran has set off a round of diplomatic barbs and thrusts on both sides. President Trump declared he wanted Iran's oil exports to go to zero, which was followed by Iran's threat to close the Strait of Hormuz. This set oil markets on edge, given that close to 20% of the world's oil flows through the Strait on any given day.4 Geopolitics Reasserts Itself In The Gulf Oil prices will become increasingly sensitive to geopolitical developments, particularly in the Gulf, now that the U.S. and its allies - chiefly KSA - and Iran and its allies are preparing to square off diplomatically, and possibly militarily. This will lead to a wider range in which oil will trade - i.e., we expect more significant deviations from fundamentally implied values, as markets attempt to price in highly uncertain outcomes to political events.5 Tensions around the Strait of Hormuz - discussed below - will remain elevated post-sanctions being re-imposed, even if we only see threats to traffic through this most-important oil transit. Chart 3 shows that in periods when the error term of our fundamental econometric model increases, it typically coincides with higher implied volatilities. Specifically, the confidence interval around our fundamental-based price forecast widens in times of heightened uncertainty and volatility. The larger the volatility, the larger the squared deviation between our fitted Brent prices against actual prices.6 This indicates the probability of ending 2H18 exactly at our $70/bbl target is reduced as mounting upside - e.g. faster-than-expected collapse in Venezuelan crude exports, rising tensions around the Strait of Hormuz or larger-than-expected Permian pipeline/production bottlenecks - and downside - e.g. escalating U.S.-Sino trade war tensions, increasing Libyan and Nigerian production - risks push the upper and lower bounds around our forecast further apart. Chart 3Increasing Sensitivity To Geopolitics Will Widen Crude's Price Range This directly translates into a wider range in which prices will trade - uncertainty is high, and, while it is being resolved, markets will remain extremely sensitive to any information that could send prices on an alternative path (Chart 4). Chart 4Greater Geopolitical Uncertainty Widens Oil Price Trading Range Risks related to a closure of the Strait are not accounted for in our forecasts. However, given the magnitude of the risks implied by even the remote possibility of a closure, we expect markets will put a risk premium into prices. In an attempt to frame out price estimates from a short (10-day) and long (100-day) closure, we provide some cursory simulation results below.7 Can Iran Close The Strait Of Hormuz? The Strait of Hormuz, through which some 20% of global oil supply transits daily, is the principal risk that will keep markets hyper-vigilant going forward.8 A complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz (Map 1) would be the greatest disruption of oil production in history, three times more significant than the supply loss following the Islamic Revolution in 1979 (Chart 5). By our estimate, a 10-day closure at the beginning of 2H19 could pop prices by ~ $25/bbl. A 100-day closure could send prices above $1,000/bbl in our estimates. Map 1Iran Threatens Gulf Shipments Again Chart 5Geopolitical Crises And Global Peak Supply Losses So, the question naturally arises, can Iran's forces close the Strait? Iran's ability is limited by structural and military factors, but it could definitely impede traffic through the globe's most crucial energy chokepoint. There are two scenarios for the closure of the Strait: (i) Iran does so preemptively in retaliation to crippling economic sanctions; or (ii) Iran does so in retaliation to an attack against its nuclear facilities. Either scenario is possible in 2019, as the U.S. intends to re-impose sanctions against Iranian oil exports on November 9, a move that could lead to armed conflict if Iran were to retaliate (Diagram 1).9 Diagram 1Iran-U.S. Tensions Decision Tree SCENARIO I - Preemptive Closure In the past, Tehran has threatened to preemptively close the Strait of Hormuz whenever tensions regarding its nuclear program arose. The threats stopped in mid-2012, as U.S. and Iranian officials engaged in negotiations over the country's nuclear program. However, on July 4 of this year, Iran's nominally moderate President Hassan Rouhani pledged that Tehran would retaliate to an oil export embargo by closing the Strait. Rouhani's comments were reinforced on July 5 by the commander of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards, whose forces patrol the Strait, Mohammad Ali Jafari. Could Iran actually impede traffic through the Strait of Hormuz?10 Yes. Our most pessimistic scenario posits that Iran could close the waterway for about three or four months. This is based on three military capabilities: mines, land-based anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCM), and a large number of small boats for suicide-like attack waves. In our pessimistic scenario, we assume that Iran would be able to deploy about 700 mines and threaten the Strait by firing only one anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCM) operated via land-based batteries or ship per day, in order to prolong the threat.11 In that way, Iran could draw out the threat indefinitely. The length of closure is based on how long it would take the U.S. naval assets in the region to clear the mines, establish a Q-route - corridor within which the probability of hitting a mine is below 10% - and locate ASCM radars and batteries. The pessimistic scenario is unlikely to occur because of several countermeasures that the U.S. and its regional allies could employ - anti-mine operations, meant to clear a so-called Q route allowing safe passage of oil tankers under U.S. naval escort; punitive retaliation, which would inflict punitive damage on Iran's economy and infrastructure; and, lastly, Iran would not want to risk exposing its radar-guided anti-ship missiles to U.S. suppression of enemy air-defense (SEAD) operations that seek and destroy radars. Despite Iran's growing capability, we still posit that its forces would only be able to close the Strait of Hormuz for between three-to-four months. However, the more likely, "optimistic," scenario is that the closure itself lasts 7-10 days, while Iran then continues to threaten, but not actually close, the Strait for up to four months. It would be worth remembering that the U.S. has already retaliated against a potential closure, precisely 30 years ago. Midway through the Iran-Iraq war, both belligerents began attacking each other's tankers in the Gulf. Iran also began to attack Kuwaiti tankers after it concluded that the country was assisting with Iraq's war efforts. In response, Kuwait requested U.S. assistance and President Ronald Reagan declared in January 1987 that tankers from Kuwait would be flagged as American ships. After several small skirmishes over the following year, the USS Samuel B Roberts hit a mine north of Qatar. The mine recovered was linked to documents found by the U.S. during an attack on a small Iranian vessel laying mines earlier in 1987. The U.S. responded by launching Operation Praying Mantis on April 18, 1988. During the operation, which only lasted a day, the U.S. navy seriously damaged Iran's naval capabilities before it was ordered to disengage as the Iranians quickly retreated. Specifically, two Iranian oil platforms, two Iranian ships, and six gunboats were destroyed. The USS Wainwright also engaged two Iranian F-4s, forcing both to retreat after one was damaged. From this embarrassing destruction of Iran's naval assets, the country realized that conventional capabilities stood little chance against a far superior U.S. navy. As a result, Iran has strengthened its asymmetrical sea capabilities, such as the use of small vessels, and has made evident that the use of mines would be integral to its engagements with foreign navies in the Gulf. However, the switch to asymmetrical warfare means that Iran would likely threaten, rather than directly close, the Strait. From an investment perspective, the threat to shipping would have to be priced-in via higher insurance rates. According to research by the University of Texas Robert S. Strauss Center, the insurance premiums never rose above 7.5% of the price of vessel during the 1980s Iran-Iraq war and actually hovered around 2% throughout the conflict. Rates for tankers docking in Somali ports, presumably as dangerous of a shipping mission as it gets, are set at 10% of the value of the vessel. A typical very large crude carrier (VLCC) is worth approximately $120 million. Adding the market value of two million barrels of crude would bring its value up to around $270 million at current prices. If insurance rates were to double to 20%, the insurance costs alone would add around $30 per barrel, $15 per barrel if rates stayed at the more reasonable 10%. This is without factoring in any geopolitical risk premium or direct loss of supply of Iran's output due to war. Bottom Line: Iran's military capabilities have increased significantly since the 1980s when it last threatened the shipping in the Strait. Iran has also bolstered its asymmetric capabilities since 2012, while the U.S. has largely remained the same in terms of anti-mine capabilities. If Iran had the first-mover advantage in our preemptive closure scenario, the most likely outcome would be that it could close the Strait for up to 10 days and then threaten to close it for up to four months in total. SCENARIO II - Retaliatory Closure A retaliatory closure is possible in the case of a U.S. (or Israeli) attack against Iran's nuclear facilities. Following from the military analysis of a preemptive closure, we can ascertain that a retaliatory closure would be far less effective. The U.S. would deploy all of its countermeasures to Iranian closure tactics as part of its initial attack. If Iran loses its first-mover advantage, it is not clear how it would lay the mines that are critical to closing the Strait. Iran's Kilo class submarines, the main component of a covert mine-laying operation, would be destroyed in port or hunted down in a large search-and-destroy mission that would "light up" the Strait of Hormuz with active sonar pings. The duration of the closure could therefore be insignificant, even non-existent. The only potential threat is that of Iran's ASCM capability. Iran would be able to use its ASCMs in much the same way as in the preemptive scenario, depending on the rate of fire and rate of discovery by U.S. assets. Bottom Line: It makes a big difference whether Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz preemptively or as part of a retaliation to an attack. The U.S. would, in any attack, likely target Iran's ability to retaliate against global shipping in the Persian Gulf. As such, Tehran's asymmetric advantages would be lost. Putting It All Together - Can Iran Close The Strait? Our three scenarios are presented in Table 2. Iran has the ability to close the Strait of Hormuz for up to three-to-four months. That "pessimistic" scenario, however, is highly unlikely. The more likely scenarios are the "preemptive optimistic" and retaliatory scenarios. Table 2Closing The Strait Of Hormuz: Scenarios Assessing the price implications of these scenarios is extremely difficult. Even though the "preemptive optimistic" and the "retaliatory" scenarios are short-lived, up to 20% of the world's daily demand would be removed from the market in the event the Strait of Hormuz was closed. Of course, the U.S. would release barrels from its 660mm-barrel Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) - likely the full maximum of 30 million barrels authorized under law, released over 30 days for a 1 MMb/d release - and Europe would also release ~ 1 MMb/d or so from its crude and product stocks. China likely would tap its SPR as well for 500k b/d. In addition, there is ~ 2 MMb/d of spare capacity in OPEC, which could be brought on line in 30 days (once the Strait is re-opened), and delivered for at least 90 days. How and when a closure of the Strait of Hormuz occurs cannot be modeled, since, as far as prices are concerned, so much depends on when it occurs, and its duration. For this reason, and the extremely low probability we attach to any closure of the Strait, we do not include these types of simulations in our analysis of the various scenarios we include in our ensemble. That said, it is useful to frame the range implied by the scenarios above. We did a cursory check of the impact of scenarios 1 and 2 above, in which we assume 19 MMb/d flow through the Strait is lost for 10 days and 100 days due to closure by Iran in July 2019. We assume this will be accompanied by a 2 MMb/d release from various SPRs globally. In scenario 1, the 10-day closure of the Strait lifts price by $25/bbl, and is resolved in ~ 2 months, with prices returning to ~ $75/bbl for the remainder of the year. In scenario 2, the Strait is closed for 100 days, and this sends prices to $1,500/bbl in our simulation. This obviously would not stand and we would expect the U.S. and its allies - supported by the entire industrialized world - would launch a powerful offensive to reopen the Strait. This would be extremely destructive to Iran, which is why we give it such a low probability. Bottom Line: While the odds of a closure of the Strait of Hormuz are extremely low - to the point of not being explicitly modeled in our balances and forecasts - framing the possible outcomes from the scenarios considered in this report reveals the huge stakes involved. A short closure of 10 days could pop prices by $25/bbl before flows are restored to normal and inventory rebuilt, while an extended 100-day closure could send prices to $1,500/bbl or more. Because the latter outcome would result in a massive offensive against Iran - supported by oil-consuming states globally - we view this as a low-probability event. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Conlan, Senior Vice President Energy Sector Strategy mattconlan@bcaresearchny.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 President Trump's tweets calling for higher oil production have consistently been directed at the original OPEC Cartel, as seen July 4: "The OPEC monopoly must remember that gas prices are up & they are doing little to help. If anything, they are driving prices higher as the United States defends many of their members for very little $'s. This must be a two way street. REDUCE PRICING NOW!" Since the end of 2016, we have been following the production and policy statements of OPEC 2.0, the name we coined for the producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia. 2 We will be exploring the rising risks to our demand projections in future research. Still, we are in broad agreement with the IMF's most recent assessment of global economic growth, which remains at 3.9% p.a. Please see "The Global Expansion: Still Strong but Less Even, More Fragile, Under Threat," published July 16, 2018, on the IMF's blog. 3 We discuss this at length in the Special Report we published with BCA's Geopolitical Strategy on June 7, 2018, entitled "Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict." It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 In an apparent recognition of what it would mean for world oil markets if Iran's exports did go to zero - particularly with Venezuela so close to collapse, which could take another 800k b/d off the market - U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced waivers to the sanctions would be granted, following Trump's remarks at the beginning of July. See "Pompeo says US could issue Iran oil sanctions waivers" in the July 10, 2018, Financial Times. The Trump administration, however, is keeping markets on their toes, with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin telling the U.S. Congress, "We want people to reduce oil purchases to zero, but in certain cases, if people can't do that overnight, we'll consider exceptions." See "Iran sues US for compensation ahead of re-imposition of oil sanctions," published by S&P Global Platts on July 17, 2018, on its spglobal.com/platts website. 5 Technically, this means the confidence interval around the target is now wider, which implies high probability of going above $80/bbl as well as the probability of going under $70/bbl. Still, the 2019 risks are skewed to the upside, in our view. 6 Given that our model is based solely on a variety of fundamental variables - i.e. supply-demand-inventory - the deviations can be interpreted as movements in the risks premium/discount. 7 This exercise does not include any estimate of oil flows through KSA's East-West pipeline, and possible exports therefrom. The rated capacity of the 745-mile line is 5 MMb/d, possibly 7 MMb/d. KSA's Red Sea loading capacity and the capacity of the Suez Canal and Bab el Mandeb under stress - i.e., the volumes either can handle with a surge of oil-tanker traffic - is not considered either. 8 This is the U.S. EIA's estimate. The EIA notes that in 2015 the daily flow of oil through the Strait accounted for 30% of all seaborne-traded crude oil and other liquids. Natural gas markets also could be affected by a closure: In 2016, more than 30% of global liquefied natural gas trade transited the Strait. Please see "Three important oil trade chokepoints are located around the Arabian Peninsula," published August 4, 2017, at eia.gov. 9 We encourage our clients to read our analysis of potential Iranian retaliatory strategies, penned by BCA's Geopolitical Strategy team. Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize," dated May 30, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Analysis of Iran's military strategy and U.S. counterstrategy used in this paper relies on research from three heavily cited papers. Eugene Gholz and Daryl Press are skeptical of Iran's ability to close the Strait in their paper titled "Protecting 'The Prize': Oil and the National Interest," published in Security Studies Vol. 19, No. 3, 2010. Caitlin Talmadge gives Iran's capabilities far more credit in a paper titled "Closing Time: Assessing the Iranian Threat to the Strait of Hormuz," published in International Security Vol. 33, No. 1, Summer 2008. Eugene Gholz also led a project at the University of Texas Robert S. Strauss Center for International Security and Law that published an extensive report titled "The Strait of Hormuz: Political-Military Analysis of Threats to Oil Flows." 11 In the Strauss Center study, the most likely number is 814 mines, if Iran had a two-week period to do so covertly. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2018

Highlights President Trump is a prisoner of his own mercantilist rhetoric - there is more trade tension and volatility to come; China's depreciation of the RMB can go further - and will elicit more punitive measures from Trump; Gasoline prices are a constraint on Trump's Maximum Pressure campaign against Iran, but only until midterm elections are done; Brexit woes are keeping us short GBP/USD, but Theresa May has discovered the credible threat of new elections - we are putting a trailing stop on this trade at 2%; The EU migration "crisis" is neither a real crisis nor investment relevant. Feature General Hummel: I'm not about to kill 80,000 innocent people! We bluffed, they called it. The mission is over. Captain Frye: Whoever said anything about bluffing, General? The Rock, 1996 As BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has expected since November 2016, the risk of trade war poses a clear and present danger for investors.1 The U.S. imposed tariffs of 25% on $34 billion of Chinese goods on July 6, with tariffs on another $16 billion going into effect on July 20. President Trump announced on July 10 that he would levy a 10% tariff on an additional $200 billion of Chinese imports by August 31 and then on another $300 billion if China still refused to back down. That would add up to $550 billion in Chinese goods and services that could be subject to tariffs, more than China exported to the U.S. last year (Chart 1)! Chart 1President Trump Magically Threatens ##br##Even Non-Existent China Imports Table 1Market's Couldn't Care##br## Less About Tariffs The S&P 500 couldn't care less. Trade-related events - and other geopolitical crises - have thus far had a negligible impact on U.S. equities (Table 1). If anything, stocks appear to be slowly climbing the geopolitical wall of worry since plunging to a low of 2,581 on February 8, which was before any trade tensions emerged in full focus (Chart 2A and Chart 2B).2 Chart 2AStocks Climbing The 'Wall Of Worry' On Trade Tensions... Chart 2B...And On Military Tensions Speaking with clients, the consensus appears to be that President Trump is "bluffing." After all, did he not successfully create a "credible threat" amidst the tensions with North Korea, thus forcing Pyongyang to stand down, change its bellicose rhetoric, free U.S. prisoners, and freeze its nuclear device and ballistic tests? This was a genuinely successful application of his "Maximum Pressure" tactic and he did not have to fire a shot!3 Yes, but the Washington-Pyongyang 2017 brinkmanship caused 10-year Treasuries to plunge 35bps from their July 7 peak to their September 7 low.4 Our colleague Rob Robis - BCA's Chief Fixed Income Strategist - assures us that this move in Treasuries last summer was purely North Korea-related, which suggests that not all investors were relaxed and expecting tensions to resolve themselves.5 President Trump may be bluffing on protectionism, on Iran, and on the U.S.'s trade and geopolitical relationship with its G7 allies. However, we should consider two risks. The first is that his opponents might not back down. Yes, we agree with the consensus that China will ultimately lose a trade war with the U.S. It is a trade surplus country fighting a trade war with its chief source of final export demand (Chart 3). Chart 3China Has More To Lose Than The U.S. Forecasting when China backs down, however, is difficult. If Beijing backs down in 2018, investors betting on stocks ignoring trade risks will be proven correct. We do not see this happening. Instead, we expect Beijing to continue using CNY depreciation to offset the impact of tariffs, likely exacerbating the ongoing USD rally in the process, and eventually putting pressure on U.S. corporate earnings in Q3 and Q4. China does not appear to be panicking about the threat of a 10% tariff. In fact, Beijing may decide to double-down on its structural reform efforts, which have negatively impacted growth in the country thus far, blaming President Trump's protectionist policies for the pain. The other question is whether the U.S. political context will allow President Trump to end the trade war. Our clients, colleagues, and friends in the financial industry seem to have collective amnesia about the "trade truce" orchestrated by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin on May 20. The truce lasted merely a couple of days, with the U.S. ultimately announcing on May 29 that the tariffs on $50 billion of Chinese imports would go forward. President Trump may have wanted to present the Mnuchin truce as a big victory ahead of the midterm elections. His tweets the next day were triumphant.6 However, once the collective American establishment (Congress, pundits, and even Trump's ardent supporters in the conservative media) got hold of the details of the deal, they were shocked and disappointed.7 Why? The American "median voter" is far more protectionist than the political establishment has wanted to admit. Now that this public preference has been elucidated, President Trump himself cannot move against it. He is a prisoner of his own mercantilist rhetoric. President Trump may be dealing with a situation similar to the one General Hummel faced in the iconic mid-1990s action thriller The Rock. Hummel, played by the steely Ed Harris, holed up in Alcatraz with VX gas-armed M55 rockets, threatening to take out tens of thousands in San Francisco unless a ransom was paid by the Washington establishment. Unfortunately for Hummel, the psychotic marines he brought to "The Rock" turned against him when he suggested that the entire operation was in fact a bluff. As such, we reiterate: Whoever said anything about bluffing? China: Beware Beijing's Retaliation Since 2017, we have cautioned investors that Beijing was likely to retaliate to the imposition of tariffs by weakening the CNY/USD.8 June was the largest one-month decline in CNY/USD since the massive devaluation in 1994 (Chart 4). BCA's China Investment Strategy has shown that the PBOC is indeed allowing China's currency to depreciate against the U.S. dollar.9 Chart 5 shows the actual CNY/USD exchange rate alongside the value that would be predicted based on its relationship with the dollar over the year prior to its early-April peak. The chart suggests that the decline in CNY/USD appears to have reflected the strength in the U.S. dollar until very recently. However, CNY/USD has fallen over the past few days by a magnitude in excess of what would be expected given movements in the greenback, implying that the very recent weakness is likely policy-driven. Chart 4The Biggest One-Month Yuan Drop Since 1994 Chart 5The CNY Is Much Weaker Than The DXY Implies BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy has pointed out that currency depreciation is also a way to stimulate the economy in the face of the central government's ongoing deleveraging policy.10 Not only does a weaker CNY dull the impact of Trump's tariffs, it also insulates China against a slowdown in global trade volumes (Chart 6). Moreover, China's current account fell into deficit last quarter (Chart 7). A weaker RMB helps deal with this issue, but the PBoC may be forced to cut Reserve Requirement Ratios (RRRs) further if the deficit remains in place, forcing the currency even lower. Chart 6China Needs A Buffer Against Slowing Trade Chart 7Supportive Conditions For A Lower CNY There is no silver lining in this move by Beijing. Evidence that China is manipulating its currency would be a clear sign of an outright, full-scale trade war between the U.S. and China. On one hand, a falling RMB will improve the financial position of China's exporters. On the other hand, it may invite further protectionist action from the U.S., including a threat by the White House to increase the tariff levels on the additional $500 billion of imports from the current 10% rate, or to enhance export restrictions on critical technologies, or to add new investment restrictions. Several of our clients have pointed out that China does not want a trade war, that it cannot win a trade war, and that it is therefore likely to offer concessions ahead of the U.S. midterm election. We agree that China is at a disadvantage.11 But we also reiterate that the concessions have already been offered, in mid-May following the Mnuchin negotiations with Chinese Vice Premier Liu He. China and the U.S. may of course resume negotiations at any time, but it will likely take months, at best, to arrange a deal that reverses this month's actual implementation of tariffs. We think that the obsession with "who will win the trade war" is misplaced. Of course, the U.S. will "win." The problem is that what the Trump administration and what investors consider a "victory" may be starkly different: victory may not include a rip-roaring stock market. In fact, President Trump may require a stock market correction precisely to convince his audience, including those in Beijing, that his threats are indeed credible. Bottom Line: President Trump's promise of a 10% tariff on $500 billion of Chinese imports can easily be assuaged by a CNY/USD depreciation. If we know that Beijing is depreciating its currency, so does the White House. The charge against Beijing for currency manipulation could occur as late as the Treasury Department's semiannual Report to Congress in October, or informally via a presidential tweet at any time before then. While the formal remedies against a country deemed to be officially engaged in currency manipulation are relatively benign in the context of the ongoing trade war, we would expect President Trump to up the pressure on China regardless. Iran: Can Midterm Election Stay President Trump's Hand? We identified U.S.-Iran tensions in our annual Strategic Outlook as the premier geopolitical risk in 2018 aside from trade concerns.12 We subsequently argued that President Trump's application of "Maximum Pressure" against Iran would likely exacerbate tensions in the Middle East, add a geopolitical risk premium to oil prices, and potentially lead to a military conflict in 2019 (Diagram 1).13 Diagram 1Iran-U.S. Tension Decision Tree The Brent crude oil price has come off its highs just below $80/bbl in late May and appears to be holding at $75/bbl. Is the market once again ignoring bubbling U.S.-Iran tensions or is there another factor at play? We suspect that investors are placing their hopes on White House pressure on producers to bring massive amounts of crude online to offset the impact of "Maximum Pressure" on Iran. First, Trump tweeted in April that "OPEC is at it again," keeping oil prices artificially high. He followed this with another tweet at the end of June, directly requesting that Saudi Arabia increase oil production by up to 2 million b/d so that he may continue to play brinkmanship with Tehran. Second, the Libyan media leaked that President Trump sent letters to the representatives of Libya's warring factions, imploring them to restart oil exports or face international prosecution and potential U.S. military intervention.14 The pressure on the Libyan authorities appears to have worked, with the Tripoli-based National Oil Corporation (NOC) ending its force majeure, a legal waiver on contractual obligations, on the ports of Ras Lanuf, Es Sider, Zueitina, and Hariga. Third, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo signaled on July 10 that the U.S. would consider granting waivers to countries seeking to avoid being sanctioned for buying oil from Iran. On July 15, however, the administration clarified the comment by stating that it would only grant limited exceptions based on national security or humanitarian efforts. The White House is realizing that, unlike its brinkmanship with North Korea, "Maximum Pressure" on Iran comes with immediate domestic costs: higher gasoline prices (Chart 8). The last thing President Trump wants to see is his household tax cut trumped by the higher cost of gasoline. Chart 8How Badly Do Americans Want A New Iran Deal? Chart 9Iran Is Not Yet At Peak North Korean Levels Of Threat Applying Maximum Pressure on Iran is tricky. Politically, the upside is limited for President Trump. First, a majority of Americans (62%) do not want to see the U.S. withdraw from the deal, and do not consider Iran to be as critical of a threat as North Korea (Chart 9). That said, 40% believe that Iran is a "very serious" threat - up from just 30% in October, 2017 - and 62% of Americans believe that "Iran has violated the terms" of the nuclear agreement. These are numbers that President Trump can "work with," but not if gasoline prices rise to consumer-pinching levels. As such, the question is whether we should stand down from our bullish oil outlook given President Trump's active role in eking out new supply. We should, if there were supply to be eked out. BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy believes that global supply capacity will not be sufficient to keep prices below $80/bbl in the event that Venezuela collapses in 2019 or that Iranian export losses are greater than the 500,000 b/d we are currently projecting.15 The U.S. EIA estimates there is only 1.8mm b/d of spare capacity available worldwide this year, to fall to just over 1 mm b/d next year (Chart 10). Our commodity strategists believe that the idle and spare capacity of KSA, Russia, and other core OPEC 2.0 states that can actually increase production would be taxed to the extreme to cover losses of Iranian exports, especially if the losses reached 1 mm b/d. In fact, many secondary OPEC 2.0 producers are struggling to produce at their 2017-2018 production quota, suggesting that lack of investment and natural depletion have already taken their toll (Chart 11). Chart 10Global Spare Capacity##br## Stretched Thin Chart 11OPEC 2.0's Core Producers Would##br## Struggle To Replace Lost Exports Could President Trump back off from the threat of brinkmanship with Iran due to the risk of rising oil prices? Yes, absolutely. We have argued in the past that President Trump appears to be an intensely domestically-focused president. We also see little logic, from the perspective of U.S. interests broadly defined or President Trump's "America First" strategy specifically, in undermining the Obama-era nuclear agreement. As such, domestic constraints could stay President Trump's hand. On the other hand, these constraints would have the greatest force ahead of the November 2018 midterm and the 2020 general elections. This gives President Trump a window between November 2018 and at least the early summer of 2020 to put Maximum Pressure on Iran. As such, we think that investors should fade White House attempts to shore up global supply. Once the midterm election is over, the pressure will fall back on Iran. What about Iran's calculus? Tehran has an interest in dampening tensions ahead of the midterms as well. However, if the U.S. actually enforces sanctions, as we expect it will, we are certain that Iran will begin to ponder the retaliatory action we describe in Diagram 1. In fact, Iran's population appears to be itching for a confrontation, with an ever-increasing majority supporting the restart of Iranian nuclear facilities in response to U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA nuclear agreement (Chart 12). Iranian officials have also already threatened to close the Straits of Hormuz as we expected they would. Chart 12Iranians Supported Ending Nuclear Deal If The U.S. Did (And It Did!) Bottom Line: Between now and November, U.S. policy towards Iran may be much ado about nothing. However, we expect the pressure to rise by the end of the year and especially in 2019. Our subjective probability of armed conflict remains at an elevated 20%, by the end of 2019. This is four times greater than our probability of kinetic action amidst the tensions between the U.S. and North Korea. Brexit: Has Theresa May Figured Out How Credible Threats Work? We have long argued that a soft Brexit is incompatible with Euroskeptic demands for increased sovereignty (Diagram 2). And, indeed, sovereignty was one of the main demands - if not the main demand - of Brexit voters ahead of the referendum. A large percent, 32% of "leave" voters, said they would be willing to vote "stay" if a deal with the EU gave "more power to the U.K. parliament," an even greater share than those focused on migration (Chart 13). As such, since March 2016, we have expected the U.K. Conservative Party to split into factions regardless of the outcome of the vote on EU membership.16 Diagram 2The Illogic Of ##br##Soft Brexit Chart 13Sovereignty Topped The##br## List Of Brexit Voter Concerns U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May has fought against the inevitable by inviting notable Euroskeptics into her cabinet and by trying to pursue a hard Brexit in practice. The problem with this strategy is that it won't work in Westminster, where a whopping 74% of all members of parliament, and 55% of all Tory MPs, declared themselves as "remain" supporters ahead of the 2016 referendum (Chart 14). Given that the House of Commons has to approve the ultimate U.K.-EU deal, a hard-Brexit deal is likely to fail in Parliament. While such a defeat would not automatically bring up an election, May would be essentially left without any political capital with which to continue EU negotiations and would either have to resign or call a new election. Chart 14Westminster MPs Support Bremain! Theresa May therefore has two options. The first is to trust the political instincts of David Davis and Boris Johnson and try to push a hard Brexit through the House of Commons. But with a slim majority of just one MP, how would she accomplish such a feat? Nobody knows, ourselves included, which is why we shorted the GBP as long as May stubbornly listened to the Euroskeptics in her cabinet. However, it appears that May has finally decided to ditch her Euroskeptic cabinet members and establish the "credible threat" of a new election. While May has not uttered the phrase directly, she hinted at a new election when she suggested that "there may be no Brexit at all." The message to hard-Brexit Tory rebels is clear: back my version of Brexit or risk new elections. From an economic perspective, retaining some semblance of Common Market membership is obviously superior to the hard-Brexit alternative. It is so superior, in fact, that Boris Johnson himself called for it immediately following the referendum!17 From a political perspective, it is also much easier to persuade less than two-dozen committed Tory Euroskeptics that a new election would be folly than it is to convince half of the party that the economic risks of a hard-Brexit are inconsequential. The switch in May's tactic therefore warrants a cautionary approach to our current GBP/USD short. The recommendation is up 5.55% since February 14. However, the GBP could be given a tailwind if investors sniff out fear amongst hard Brexit Tories. We still believe that downside risks exist in the short term. First, there is no telling if the EU will accept the particularities of May's Brexit strategy. In fact, the EU may want to make May's life even more difficult by asking for more concessions. Second, Euroskeptic Tories in the House of Commons may be willing martyrs, rebelling against May regardless of the economic and political consequences. Bottom Line: We are keeping our short GBP/USD on for now, which has returned 5.55% since February 14, but we will tighten the stop to just 2%. We think that Theresa May has finally figured out how to use "credible threats" to cajole her party into a soft Brexit. The problem, however, is that she still needs Brussels to play ball and her Euroskeptic MPs to act against their ideology. Europe: Will The Immigration Crisis End The EU? Chart 15European Migration Crisis Is Over No. There is no migration crisis in the EU (Chart 15). Despite the posturing in Europe over the past several months, the migration crisis ended in October 2015. As we forecast at the time, Europe has since taken several steps ovet the succeeding years to increase the enforcement of its external borders, including illiberal methods that many investors thought beyond European sensibilities.18 Today, EU member states are openly interdicting ships carrying asylum seekers and turning them away in international waters. Chancellor Angela Merkel has become just the latest in a long line of policymakers to succumb to her political constraints - and abandon her preferences - by agreeing to end the standoff with her conservative Bavarian allies. Merkel has agreed to set up transit centers on the border of Austria from where migrants will be returned to the EU country where they were originally registered, or simply sent across the border to Austria. The idea behind the move is to end the "pull" that Merkel inadvertently created by openly declaring that Germany was open to migrants regardless of where they came from. Why wouldn't migrants keep coming to Europe regardless? Because if the promise of a job and a legal status in Germany or other EU member states is no longer available, the cost - in treasure, limb, and life - of the journey through the Sahara and unstable states like Libya, and the Mediterranean Sea will no longer make sense. As Chart 15 shows, potential migrants are capable of making the cost-benefit calculation and are electing to stay put. Bottom Line: The EU migration crisis is not investment-relevant. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see the Appendices for the detailed description of events. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Pyongyang's Pivot To America," June 8, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Equities And Bonds Continue To Rally?" dated September 20, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Have Bond Yields Peaked For The Cycle? No," dated September 12, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 6 His tweets in the immediacy of the deal suggest that this was the case. He tweeted, immediately following Mnuchin's Fox News appearance, "China has agreed to buy massive amounts of ADDITIONAL Farm/Agricultural Products - would be one of the best things to happen to our farmers in many years!" He then tweeted again, suggesting that his deal was superior to anything President Obama got, "I ask Senator Chuck Schumer, why didn't President Obama & the Democrats do something about Trade with China, including Theft of Intellectual Property etc.? They did NOTHING! With that being said, Chuck & I have long agreed on this issue! Trade, plus, with China will happen!" His third tweet suggested that the deal being negotiated was indeed a big compromise, "On China, Barriers and Tariffs to come down for first time." All random capitalizations are President Trump's originals. 7 We reacted to the truce by arguing that it would not "last long." It lasted merely three days! Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Some Good News (Trade), Some Bad News (Italy)," dated May 23, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, and "Are You 'Sick Of Winning' Yet?" dated June 20, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Now What?" dated June 27, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "What Is Good For China Doesn't Always Help The World," dated June 29, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Year Two: Let The Trade War Begin," dated March 14, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Three Questions For 2018," dated December 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize," dated May 30, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see "Trump's letter to rivals allegedly results in resumption of oil exports in Libya," Libyan Express, dated July 11, 2018, available at libyanexpress.com. 15 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Brinkmanship Fuels Chaos In Oil Markets, And Raises The Odds Of Conflict In The Gulf," dated July 5, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "With Or Without You: The U.K. And The EU," dated March 17, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Johnson stated right after the referendum that "there will continue to be free trade and access to the single market." Please see "U.K. will retain access to the EU single market: Brexit leader Johnson," Reuters, dated June 26, 2016, available at uk.reuters.com. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Great Migration - Europe, Refugees, And Investment Implications," dated September 23, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Appendix 2A Appendix 2B Appendix 2B (Cont.) Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights The not-so-veiled threat to Gulf Arab oil shipments through the critically important Strait of Hormuz by Iran's President Rouhani earlier this week was a response to the ramping up of maximum pressure by the Trump administration, which is demanding importers of Iranian crude reduce volumes to zero. This was a predictable first step toward what could become a chaotic oil pricing environment (Map 1).1 Map 1Iran Threatens Gulf Shipments Again Oil prices surged on reports of the Iranian threat Tuesday morning, sold off, and recovered later in the day. Pledges from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) to lift production to as much as 11mm b/d this month - a record high - were all but ignored by the market. The threat to safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz - where ~ 20% of global supply transits daily - raises the spectre of military confrontation between the U.S. and Iran, and their respective allies. The growing risks from tighter supply - markets could lose as much as 2mm b/d of Iranian and Venezuelan exports as things stand now - now must be augmented by the likelihood of a Gulf conflict. Energy: Overweight. We remain long call spreads along the Brent forward curve and the S&P GSCI, as we expect volatility, prices and backwardation to move higher. These recommendations are up 34.6% since they were recommended five months ago. Base Metals: Neutral. Treatment and refining charges are higher following smelter closings. Metal Bulletin's TC/RC index was ~ $80/MT at end-June, up ~ $3 vs end-May. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold traded below $1,240/oz over the past week, but recovered above $1,250/oz as geopolitical tensions rise. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The USDA expects U.S. farm exports in 2018 will come in at $142.5 billion, the second-highest level on record, according to agriculture.com. Feature Oil pricing could become chaotic, as U.S. policy measures aimed at Iran are countered by responses that are not altogether unexpected. In addition to limited spare capacity, and increased unplanned production outages, markets now must discount the likelihood of renewed armed conflict (short of all-out war) in the Gulf between the U.S. and Iran, and their respective allies. To appreciate the significance of President Rouhani's not-so-veiled threat to deny safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz to oil tankers carrying Gulf Arab states' exports, one need only consider that some 20% of the world's oil supply flows through this narrow passage on any given day.2 The response of the president of Iran to U.S. policy - nominally directed at denying Iran the capacity to develop nuclear weapons, but arguably meant to force the existing regime from power - is a predictable next step in the brinkmanship now being played out between these long-standing rivals.3 Following the lifting of nuclear-related sanctions in 2015, Iran's production rose ~ 1mm b/d from 2.8mm b/d to 3.8mm b/d. We expect 500k b/d of Iran's exports will be lost to the market by the end of 1H19, as a result of sanctions being re-imposed November 4. Other estimates run as high as 1mm b/d being lost if the U.S. succeeds in getting importers to drastically reduce purchases. The ire of the U.S. also is directed at Venezuela, where the loss of that country's ~ 1mm b/d of exports would become all but certain, if, as U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo pressed for last month, U.S. trade sanctions against the failing state are imposed.4 We estimate Venezuela's production is down close to 1mm b/d since end-2016, and will average ~ 1.07mm b/d in 2H18 (Table 1). Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (mm b/d) BCA's Ensemble Forecast Includes Extreme Events In our updated balances modeling, our base case front-loaded the OPEC 2.0 production increase announced by the coalition at its end-June meeting in Vienna. Core OPEC 2.0's 1.1mm b/d increase (1H19 vs 1H18) is offset by losses in the rest of OPEC 2.0 amounting to ~ 530k b/d in 2H18, and ~ 640k b/d in 1H19. This leaves OPEC 2.0's net output up ~ 275k b/d in 2H18, and down ~ 430k b/d in 1H19 vs. 1H18 levels. We assume Iran's exports fall 200k b/d by the end of this year, and another 300k b/d by the end of 1H19, resulting in a total loss of 500k b/d by 2H19. Global supply rises ~ 2mm b/d this year and next, averaging 99.9mm b/d and 101.7mm b/d, respectively, in our estimates. The bulk of this growth is provided by U.S. shale-oil output, which we estimate will rise by 1.28mm b/d this year, and 1.33mm b/d next year. On the demand side, we expect global growth to remain strong, powered as always by stout EM consumption. That said, rising trade frictions, signs the synchronized global growth that powered EM oil demand could move out of synch, and divergent monetary policies at systematically important central banks could take some of the wind out of our consumption-forecast sails (Chart of the Week). That said, if a supply-side event results in a sharp upward price move, we would expect demand growth to adjust lower in fairly short order. This is because many EM states removed or reduced oil-price subsidies in the wake of the prices collapse following OPEC's declaration of a market-share war in late 2014, which leaves consumers in these state more directly exposed to higher prices than in previous cycles. Our base case is augmented with three scenarios. In our simulations, the Venezuela collapse is met by OPEC 2.0's core producers lifting production another 200k b/d, which takes its total output hike to 1.2mm b/d in 2019. OPEC 2.0 does not respond to the lower-than-expected U.S. shale growth contingency we're modeling, which is brought on by pipeline bottlenecks in the Permian Basin. Our scenarios are: A reduction in our forecasted U.S. shale production increase arising from pipeline bottlenecks (Scenario 2, Chart 2); Venezuela production collapses to 250k b/d from current levels of ~ 1.07mm b/d, which allows it to support domestic refined product demand and nothing more (Scenario 3, Chart 2); Both of these occurring simultaneously in the Oct/18 - Sep/19 interval (Scenario 4, Chart 2). Chart of the WeekTight Supply, Strong Demand##BR##Remain Supportive of Prices Chart 2BCA's Scenarios Include##BR##Production Losses In Venezuela, Iran The Stark Reality Of Low Spare Capacity Chart 3Global Spare Capacity Stretched Thin Our scenario analyses - particularly Scenarios 3 and 4 - illustrate the stark reality confronting oil markets: Spare capacity will not be sufficient to keep prices below $80/bbl in the event Venezuela collapses, or if Iranian export losses are greater than the 500k b/d we currently are modeling. The U.S. EIA estimates there is only 1.8mm b/d of spare capacity available worldwide this year. This will fall to just over 1mm b/d next year (Chart 3).5 As things stand now, idle and spare capacity of KSA, Russia and core OPEC 2.0 states that actually can increase production would be taxed to the extreme to cover losses of Iranian exports, if some of the higher levels projected by analysts - i.e., up to 1mm b/d - are realized (Chart 4). KSA's maximum sustainable capacity is believed to be ~ 12mm b/d; officials have indicated production will be raised to close to 11mm b/d in July, then likely held there. This record level of production will test KSA's production infrastructure, and would leave the Kingdom with 1mm b/d of spare capacity. Russia is believed to have ~ 400k b/d of spare capacity; it likely will restore ~ 200k b/d of production to the market over the near future, leaving 200k b/d as spare capacity. If just the two high-loss events described above are realized - i.e., Iran export losses come in at 1mm b/d instead of the 500k b/d we expect, and Venezuela's 1mm b/d of exports are lost because the state collapses - global inventory draws will accelerate until enough demand is destroyed via higher prices to clear the market at whatever level of supply can be maintained (Chart 5). Approaching that point, we would expect OECD strategic petroleum reserves (SPRs) to be released.6 Chart 4OPEC 2.0's Core Producers Would Be##BR##Taxed to Replace Lost Exports Chart 5A Supply Shock Would Draw##BR##Crude Inventories Sharply Chart 6Falling Net Imports Implies##BR##Current SPR Could Be Too Large It is difficult to forecast the price at which markets would clear if we get to the state described above. However, it is worthwhile noting that OPEC spare capacity in 2008 stood at 1.4mm b/d, or 2.4% of global consumption. The 1.8mm b/d of OPEC spare capacity EIA estimates is now available to the market represents 1.8% of daily consumption globally. By next year, the EIA's estimated 1mm b/d of OPEC spare capacity will represent a little over 1% of global daily consumption. It was in this economic setting that WTI and Brent breached $150/bbl in mid-2008, just before the Global Financial Crisis tanked the world economy.7 Bottom Line: Into the mix of tightening global supply and limited spare capacity, oil markets now confront higher odds of armed conflict in the Gulf once again. Oil pricing will remain volatile, and could become chaotic as brinkmanship raises the level of uncertainty in markets. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "Rouhani says U.S. pressure to stop Iranian oil may affect regional exports," published by uk.reuters.com July 3, 2018. We explore the Trump administration's maximum pressure in a Commodity & Energy Strategy Special Report published June 7, 2018, entitled "Iraq is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict." It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. We are using the term chaotic in the sense of "... sensitive dependence on initial conditions or 'the butterfly effect'" described in "Weak Emergence" by Mark A. Bedau (1997), which appears in Philosophical Perspectives: Mind, Causation, And World, Vol. 11, J. Tomberlin, ed., Blackwell, Malden MA. 2 The U.S. EIA calls the Strait of Hormuz "the world's most important oil chokepoint" in its "World Oil Transit Chokepoints," published by the U.S. EIA July 25, 2017. By the EIA's estimates, 80% of the crude oil transiting the strait is bound for Asian markets, with China, Japan, India, South Korea and Singapore being the largest markets. 3 Please see "Mattis's Last Stand Is Iran," published by Foreign Policy June 28, 2018, on foreignpolicy.com. The essay describes the state of play within the Trump administration vis-à-vis Iran. President Trump's third national security advisor, John Bolton, has stated the goal of the administration's policy is not regime change, but denial of the capacity to develop nuclear weapons. However, Bolton repeatedly called for regime change in Iran prior to being tapped as the national security advisor, and has advocated going to war with Iran to prevent it from developing a nuclear weapons capability, in a New York Times op-ed published March 26, 2015, entitled "To Stop Iran's Bomb, Bomb Iran." 4 Please see "Pompeo calls on OAS to oust Venezuela," published by CNN Politics June 4, 2018. 5 OPEC 2.0 is the coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia. On June 22, 2018, the coalition agreed to raise production 1mm b/d beginning in July. The core consists of KSA, Russia, Iraq, UAE, Kuwait, Oman, and Qatar. The other core members of OPEC 2.0 are believed to have close to 300k b/d of spare capacity. Other estimates put the spare capacity as high as 3.4mm b/d. The ex-KSA estimates are pieced together by using the International Energy Agency's estimates for core OPEC and Citicorp's estimates for Russia. Please see "Russia's OPEC Deal Dilemma Worsens as Idled Crude Capacity Grows," published by bloomberg.com May 16, 2018. 6 In just-completed research, our colleague Matt Conlan writes the U.S. SPR, at ~ 660mm barrels, can cover more than 100 days of net U.S. crude imports (Chart 6). This coverage will rise to 140 days of net crude imports by the end of 2019. Please see "American Energy Independence And SPR Ramifications," published by BCA Research's Energy Sector Strategy July 4, 2018. 7 Please see the discussion of demand beginning on p. 228 of Hamilton, James D. (2009), "Causes And Consequences Of The Oil Shock Of 2007 - 08," published by the Brookings Institute. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017

Special Report

Feature Valuations, whether for currencies, equities or bonds, are always at the top of the list of the determinants of any asset's long-term performance. This means that after large FX moves like those experienced so far this year, it is always useful to pause and reflect on where currency valuations stand. In this optic, this week we update our set of long-term valuation models for currencies that we introduced In February 2016 in a Special Report titled, "Assessing Fair Value In FX Markets". Included in these models are variables such as productivity differentials, terms-of-trade shocks, net international investment positions, real rate differentials and proxies for global risk aversion.1 These models cover 22 currencies, incorporating both G-10 and EM FX markets. Twice a year, we provide clients with a comprehensive update of all these long-term models in one stop. The models are not designed to generate short- or intermediate-term forecasts. Instead, they reflect the economic drivers of a currency's equilibrium. Their purpose is therefore threefold. First, they provide guideposts to judge whether we are at the end, beginning or middle of a long-term currency cycle. Second, by providing strong directional signals, they help us judge whether any given move is more likely to be a countertrend development or not, offering insight on its potential longevity. Finally, they assist us and our clients in cutting through the fog, and understanding the key drivers of cyclical variations in a currency's value. The U.S. Dollar Chart 1Dollar: Back At Fair Value 2017 was a terrible year for the dollar, but the selloff had one important positive impact: it erased the dollar's massive overvaluation that was so evident in the direct wake of U.S. President Donald Trump's election. In fact, today, based on its long-term drivers, the dollar is modestly cheap (Chart 1). Fair value for the dollar is currently flattered by the fact that real long-term yields are higher in the U.S. than in the rest of the G-10. Investors are thus betting that U.S. neutral interest rates are much higher than in other advanced economies. This also means that the uptrend currently evident in the dollar's fair value could end once we get closer to the point where Europe can join the U.S. toward lifting rates - a point at which investors could begin upgrading their estimates of the neutral rate in the rest of the world. This would be dollar bearish. For the time being, we recommend investors keep a bullish posturing on the USD for the remainder of 2018. Not only is global growth still slowing, a traditionally dollar-bullish development, but also the fed funds rate is likely to be moving closer to r-star. As we have previously showed, when the fed funds rate rises above r-star, the dollar tends to respond positively.2 Finally, cyclical valuations are not a handicap for the dollar anymore. The Euro Chart 2The Euro Is Still Cheap As most currencies managed to rise against the dollar last year, the trade-weighted euro's appreciation was not as dramatic as that of EUR/USD. Practically, this also means that despite a furious rally in this pair, the broad euro remains cheap on a cyclical basis, a cheapness that has only been accentuated by weakness in the euro since the first quarter of 2018 (Chart 2). The large current account of the euro area, which stands at 3.5% of GDP, is starting to have a positive impact on the euro's fair value, as it is lifting the currency bloc's net international investment position. Moreover, euro area interest rates may remain low relative to the U.S. for the next 12 to 18 months, but the 5-year forward 1-month EONIA rate is still near rock-bottom levels, and has scope to rise on a multi-year basis. This points toward a continuation of the uptrend in the euro's fair value. For the time being, despite a rosy long-term outlook for the euro, we prefer to remain short EUR/USD. Shorter-term fair value estimates are around 1.12, and the euro tends to depreciate against the dollar when global growth is weakening, as is currently the case. Moreover, the euro area domestic economy is not enjoying the same strength as the U.S. right now. This creates an additional handicap for the euro, especially as the Federal Reserve is set to keep increasing rates at a pace of four hikes a year, while the European Central Bank remains as least a year away from lifting rates. The Yen Chart 3Attractive Long-Term Valuation, But... The yen remains one of the cheapest major currencies in the world (Chart 3), as the large positive net international investment position of Japan, which stands at 64% of GDP, still constitutes an important support for it. Moreover, the low rate of Japanese inflation is helping Japan's competitiveness. However, while valuations represent a tailwind for the yen, the Bank of Japan faces an equally potent headwind. At current levels, the yen may not be much of a problem for Japan's competitiveness, but it remains the key driver of the country's financial conditions. Meanwhile, Japanese FCI are the best explanatory variable for Japanese inflation.3 It therefore follows that any strengthening in the yen will hinder the ability of the BoJ to hit its inflation target, forcing this central bank to maintain a dovish tilt for the foreseeable future. As a result, while we see how the current soft patch in global growth may help the yen, we worry that any positive impact on the JPY may prove transitory. Instead, we would rather play the yen-bullish impact of slowing global growth and rising trade tensions by selling the euro versus the yen than by selling the USD, as the ECB does not have the same hawkish bias as the Fed, and as the European economy is not the same juggernaut as the U.S. right now. The British Pound Chart 4Smaller Discount In The GBP The real-trade weighted pound has been appreciating for 13 months. This reflects two factors: the nominal exchange rate of the pound has regained composure from its nadir of January 2017, and higher inflation has created additional upward pressures on the real GBP. As a result of these dynamics, the deep discount of the real trade-weighted pound to its long-term fair value has eroded (Chart 4). The risk that the May government could fall and be replaced either by a hard-Brexit PM or a Corbyn-led coalition means that a risk premia still needs to be embedded in the price of the pound. As a result, the current small discount in the pound may not be enough to compensate investors for taking on this risk. This suggests that the large discount of the pound to its purchasing-power-parity fair value might overstate its cheapness. While the risks surrounding British politics means that the pound is not an attractive buy on a long-term basis anymore, we do like it versus the euro on a short-term basis: EUR/GBP tends to depreciate when EUR/USD has downside, and the U.K. economy may soon begin to stabilize as slowing inflation helps British real wages grow again after contracting from October 2016 to October 2017, which implies that the growth driver may move a bit in favor of the pound. The Canadian Dollar Chart 5CAD Near Fair Value The stabilization of the fair value for the real trade-weighted Canadian dollar is linked to the rebound in commodity prices, oil in particular. However, despite this improvement, the CAD has depreciated and is now trading again in line with its long-term fair value (Chart 5). This lack of clear valuation opportunity implies that the CAD will remain chained to economic developments. On the negative side, the CAD still faces some potentially acrimonious NAFTA negotiations, especially as U.S. President Donald Trump could continue with his bellicose trade rhetoric until the mid-term elections. Additionally, global growth is slowing and emerging markets are experiencing growing stresses, which may hurt commodity prices and therefore pull the CAD's long-term fair value lower. On the positive side, the Canadian economy is strong and is exhibiting a sever lack of slack in its labor market, which is generating both rapidly growing wages and core inflation of 1.8%. The Bank of Canada is therefore set to increase rates further this year, potentially matching the pace of rate increase of the Fed over the coming 24 months. As a result of this confluence of forces, we are reluctant to buy the CAD against the USD, especially as the former is strong. Instead, we prefer buying the CAD against the EUR and the AUD, two currencies set to suffer if global growth decelerates but that do not have the same support from monetary policy as the loonie. The Australian Dollar Chart 6The AUD Is Not Yet Cheap The real trade-weighted Australian dollar has depreciated by 5%, which has caused a decrease in the AUD's premium to its long-term fair value. The decline in the premium also reflects a small upgrade in the equilibrium rate itself, a side effect of rising commodity prices last year. However, despite these improvements, the AUD still remains expensive (Chart 6). Moreover, the rise in the fair value may prove elusive, as the slowdown in global growth and rising global trade tensions could also push down the AUD's fair value. These dynamics make the AUD our least-favored currency in the G-10. Additionally, the domestic economy lacks vigor. Despite low unemployment, the underemployment rate tracked by the Reserve Bank of Australia remains nears a three-decade high, which is weighing on both wages and inflation. This means that unlike in Canada, the RBA is not set to increase rates this year, and may in fact be forced to wait well into 2019 or even 2020 before doing so. The AUD therefore is not in a position to benefit from the same policy support as the CAD. We are currently short the AUD against the CAD and the NZD. We have also recommended investors short the Aussie against the yen as this cross is among the most sensitive to global growth. The New Zealand Dollar Chart 7NZD Vs Fair Value After having traded at a small discount to its fair value in the wake of the formation of a Labour / NZ first coalition government, the NZD is now back at equilibrium (Chart 7). The resilience of the kiwi versus the Aussie has been a key factor driving the trade-weighted kiwi higher this year. Going forward, a lack of clearly defined over- or undervaluation in the kiwi suggests that the NZD will be like the Canadian dollar: very responsive to international and domestic economic developments. This gives rise to a very muddled picture. Based on the output and unemployment gaps, the New Zealand economy seems at full employment, yet it has not seen much in terms of wage or inflationary pressures. As a result, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand has refrained from adopting a hawkish tone. Moreover, the populist policy prescriptions of the Ardern government are also creating downside risk for the kiwi. High immigration has been a pillar behind New Zealand's high-trend growth rate, and therefore a buttress behind the nation's high interest rates. Yet, the government wants to curtail this source of dynamism. On the international front, the kiwi economy has historically been very sensitive to global growth. While this could be a long-term advantage, in the short-term the current global growth soft patch represents a potent handicap for the kiwi. In the end, we judge Australia's problems as deeper than New Zealand's. Since valuations are also in the NZD's favor, the only exposure we like to the kiwi is to buy it against the AUD. The Swiss Franc Chart 8The SNB's Problem On purchasing power parity metrics, the Swiss franc is expensive, and the meteoric rise of Swiss unit labor costs expressed in euros only confirms this picture. The problem is that this expensiveness is justified once other factors are taken into account, namely Switzerland's gargantuan net international investment position of 128% of GDP, which exerts an inexorable upward drift on the franc's fair value. Once this factor is incorporated, the Swiss franc currently looks cheap (Chart 8). The implication of this dichotomy is that the Swiss franc could experience upward pressure, especially when global growth slows, which is the case right now. However, the Swiss National Bank remains highly worried that an indebted economy like Switzerland, which also suffers from a housing bubble, cannot afford the deflationary pressures created by a strong franc. As a result, we anticipate that the SNB will continue to fight tooth and nail against any strength in the franc. Practically, we are currently short EUR/CHF on a tactical basis. Nonetheless, once we see signs that global growth is bottoming, we will once again look to buy the euro against the CHF as the SNB will remain in the driver's seat. The Swedish Krona Chart 9What The Riksbank Wants The Swedish krona is quite cheap (Chart 9), but in all likelihood the Riksbank wants it this way. Sweden is a small, open economy, with total trade representing 86% of GDP. This means that a cheap krona is a key ingredient to generating easy monetary conditions. However, this begs the question: Does Sweden actually need easy monetary conditions? We would argue that the answer to this question is no. Sweden has an elevated rate of capacity utilization as well as closed unemployment and output gaps. In fact, trend Swedish inflation has moved up, albeit in a choppy fashion, and the Swedish economy remains strong. Moreover, the country currently faces one of the most rabid housing bubbles in the world, which has caused household debt to surge to 182% of disposable income. This is creating serious vulnerabilities in the Swedish economy - dangers that will only grow larger as the Riksbank keep monetary policy at extremely easy levels. A case can be made that with large exposure to both global trade and industrial production cycles, the current slowdown in global growth is creating a risk for Sweden. These risks are compounded by the rising threat of a trade war. This could justify easier monetary policy, and thus a weaker SEK. When all is said and done, while the short-term outlook for the SEK will remained stymied by the global growth outlook, we do expect the Riksbank to increase rates this year as inflation could accelerate significantly. As a result, we recommend investors use this period of weakness to buy the SEK against both the dollar and the euro. The Norwegian Krone Chart 10The NOK Is The Cheapest Commodity Currency In The G-10 The Norwegian krone has experienced a meaningful rally against the euro and the krona this year - the currencies of its largest trading partners - and as such, the large discount of the real trade-weighted krone to its equilibrium rate has declined. On a long-term basis, the krone remains the most attractive commodity currency in the G-10 based on valuations alone (Chart 10). While we have been long NOK/SEK, currently we have a tactical negative bias towards this cross. Investors have aggressively bought inflation protection, a development that tends to favor the NOK over the SEK. However, slowing global growth could disappoint these expectations, resulting in a period of weakness in the NOK/SEK pair. Nonetheless, we believe this is only a short-term development, and BCA's bullish cyclical view on oil will ultimately dominate. As a result, we recommend long-term buyers use any weakness in the NOK right now to buy more of it against the euro, the SEK, and especially against the AUD. The Yuan Chart 11The CNY Is At Equilibrium The fair value of the Chinese yuan has been in a well-defined secular bull market because China's productivity - even if it has slowed - remains notably higher than productivity growth among its trading partners. However, while the yuan traded at a generous discount to its fair value in early 2017, this is no longer the case (Chart 11). Despite this, on a long-term basis we foresee further appreciation in the yuan as we expect the Chinese economy to continue to generate higher productivity growth than its trading partners. Moreover, for investors with multi-decade investment horizons, a slow shift toward the RMB as a reserve currency will ultimately help the yuan. However, do not expect this force to be felt in the RMB any time soon. On a shorter-term horizon, the picture is more complex. Chinese economic activity is slowing as monetary conditions as well as various regulatory and administrative rules have been tightened - all of them neatly fitting under the rubric of structural reforms. Now that the trade relationship between the U.S. and China is becoming more acrimonious, Chinese authorities are likely to try using various relief valves to limit downside to Chinese growth. The RMB could be one of these tools. As such, the recent strength in the trade-weighted dollar is likely to continue to weigh on the CNY versus the USD. Paradoxically, the USD's strength is also likely to mean that the trade-weighted yuan could experience some upside. The Brazilian Real Chart 12More Downside In The BRL Despite the real's recent pronounced weakness, it has more room to fall before trading at a discount to its long-term fair value (Chart 12). More worrisome, the equilibrium rate for the BRL has been stable, even though commodity prices have rebounded. This raises the risk that the BRL could experience a greater decline than what is currently implied by its small premium to fair value if commodity prices were to fall. Moreover, bear markets in the real have historically ended at significant discounts to fair value. The current economic environment suggests this additional decline could materialize through the remainder of 2018. Weak global growth has historically been a poison for commodity prices as well as for carry trades, two factors that have a strong explanatory power for the real. Moreover, China's deceleration and regulatory tightening should translate into further weakness in Chinese imports of raw materials, which would have an immediate deleterious impact on the BRL. Additionally, as we have previously argued, when the fed funds rate rise above r-star, this increases the probability of an accident in global capital markets. Since elevated debt loads are to be found in EM and not in the U.S., this implies that vulnerability to a financial accident is greatest in the EM space. The BRL, with its great liquidity and high representation in investors' portfolios, could bear the brunt of such an adjustment. The Mexican Peso Chart 13The MXN Is A Bargain Once Again When we updated our long-term models last September, the peso was one of the most expensive currencies covered, and we flagged downside risk. With President Trump re-asserting his protectionist rhetoric, and with EM bonds and currencies experiencing a wave of pain, the MXN has eradicated all of its overvaluation and is once again trading at a significant discount to its long-term fair value (Chart 13). Is it time to buy the peso? On a pure valuation basis, the downside now seems limited. However, risks are still plentiful. For one, NAFTA negotiations are likely to remain rocky, at least until the U.S. mid-term elections. Trump's hawkish trade rhetoric is a surefire way to rally the GOP base at the polls in November. Second, the leading candidate in the polls for the Mexican presidential elections this summer is Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, the former mayor of Mexico City. Not only could AMLO's leftist status frighten investors, he is looking to drive a hard bargain with the U.S. on NAFTA, a clear recipe for plentiful headline risk in the coming months. Third, the MXN is the EM currency with the most abundant liquidity, and slowing global growth along with rising EM volatility could easily take its toll on the Mexican currency. As a result, to take advantage of the MXN's discount to fair value, a discount that is especially pronounced when contrasted with other EM currencies, we recommend investors buy the MXN versus the BRL or the ZAR instead of buying it outright against the USD. These trades are made even more attractive by the fact that Mexican rates are now comparable to those offered on South African or Brazilian paper. The Chilean Peso Chart 14The CLP Is At Risk We were correct to flag last September that the CLP had less downside than the BRL. But now, while the BRL's premium to fair value has declined significantly, the Chilean peso continues to trade near its highest premium of the past 10 years (Chart 14). This suggests the peso could have significant downside if EM weakness grows deeper. This risk is compounded by the fact that the peso's fair value is most sensitive to copper prices. Prices of the red metal had been stable until recent trading sessions. However, with the world largest consumer of copper - China - having accumulated large stockpiles and now slowing, copper prices could experience significant downside, dragging down the CLP in the process. An additional risk lurking for the CLP is the fact that Chile displays some of the largest USD debt as a percent of GDP in the EM space. This means that a strong dollar could inflict a dangerous tightening in Chilean financial conditions. This risk is even more potent as the strength in the dollar is itself a consequence of slowing global growth - a development that is normally negative for the Chilean peso. This confluence thus suggests that the expensive CLP is at great risk in the coming months. The Colombian Peso Chart 15The COP Is Latam's Cheapest Currency The Colombian peso is currently the cheapest currency covered by our models. The COP has not been able to rise along with oil prices, creating a large discount in the process (Chart 15). Three factors have weighed on the Colombian currency. First, Colombia just had elections. While a market-friendly outcome ultimately prevailed, investors were already expressing worry ahead of the first round of voting four weeks ago. Second, Colombia has a large current account deficit of 3.7% of GDP, creating a funding risk in an environment where liquidity for EM carry trades has decreased. Finally, Colombia has a heavy USD-debt load. However, this factor is mitigated by the fact that private debt stands at 65% of Colombia's GDP, reflecting the banking sector's conservative lending practices. At this juncture, the COP is an attractive long-term buy, especially as president-elect Ivan Duque is likely to pursue market-friendly policies. However, the country's large current account deficit as well as the general risk to commodity prices emanating from weaker global growth suggests that short-term downside risk is still present in the COP versus the USD. As a result, while we recommend long-term investors gain exposure to this cheap Latin American currency, short-term players should stay on the sidelines. Instead, we recommend tactical investors capitalize on the COP's cheapness by buying it against the expensive CLP. Not only are valuations and carry considerations favorable, Chile has even more dollar debt than Colombia, suggesting that the former is more exposed to dollar risk than the latter. Moreover, Chile is levered to metals prices while Colombia is levered to oil prices. Our commodity strategists are more positive on crude than on copper, and our negative outlook on China reinforces this message. The South African Rand Chart 16The Rand Will Cheapen Further Despite its more than 20% depreciation versus the dollar since February, the rand continues to trade above its estimate of long-term fair value (Chart 16). The equilibrium rate for the ZAR is in a structural decline, even after adjusting for inflation, as the productivity of the South African economy remains in a downtrend relative to that of its trading partners. This means the long-term trend in the ZAR will continue to point south. On a cyclical basis, it is not just valuations that concern us when thinking about the rand. South Africa runs a deficit in terms of FDI; however, portfolio inflows into the country have been rather large, resulting in foreign ownership of South African bonds of 44%. Additionally, net speculative positions in the rand are still at elevated levels. This implies that investors could easily sell their South African assets if natural resource prices were to sag. Since BCA's view on Chinese activity as well as the soft patch currently experienced by the global economy augur poorly for commodities, this could create potent downside risks for the ZAR. We will be willing buyers only once the rand's overvaluation is corrected. The Russian Ruble Chart 17The Ruble Is At Fair Value There is no evidence of mispricing in the rubble (Chart 17). Moreover the Russian central bank runs a very orthodox monetary policy, which gives us comfort that the RUB, with its elevated carry, remains an attractive long-term hold within the EM FX complex. On a shorter-term basis, the picture is more complex. The RUB is both an oil play as well as a carry currency. This means that the RUB is very exposed to global growth and liquidity conditions. This creates major risks for the ruble. EM FX volatility has been rising, and slowing global growth could result in an unwinding of inflation-protection trades, which may pull oil prices down. This combination is negative for both EM currencies and oil plays for the remainder of 2018. Our favorite way to take advantage of the RUB's sound macroeconomic policy, high interest rates and lack of valuation extremes is to buy it against other EM currencies. It is especially attractive against the BRL, the ZAR and the CLP. The only EM commodity currency against which it doesn't stack up favorably is the COP, as the COP possesses a much deeper discount to fair value than the RUB, limiting its downside if the global economy were to slow more sharply than we anticipate. The Korean Won Chart 18Despite Its Modest Cheapness, The KRW Is At Risk The Korean won currently trades at a modest discount to its long-term fair value (Chart 18). This suggests the KRW will possess more defensive attributes than the more expensive Latin American currencies. However, BCA is worried over the Korean currency's cyclical outlook. The Korean economy is highly levered to both global trade and the Chinese investment cycle. This means the Korean won is greatly exposed to the two largest risks in the global economy. Moreover, the Korean economy is saddled with a large debt load for the nonfinancial private sector of 193% of GDP, which means the Bank of Korea could be forced to take a dovish turn if the economy is fully hit by a global and Chinese slowdown. Moreover, the won has historically been very sensitive to EM sovereign spreads. EM spreads have moved above their 200-day moving average, which suggests technical vulnerability. This may well spread to the won, especially in light of the global economic environment. The Philippine Peso Chart 19Big Discount In The PHP The PHP is one of the rare EM currencies to trade at a significant discount to its long-term fair value (Chart 19). There are two main reasons behind this. First, the Philippines runs a current account deficit of 0.5% of GDP. This makes the PHP vulnerable in an environment where global liquidity has gotten scarcer and where carry trades have underperformed. The second reason behind the PHP's large discount is politics. Global investors remain uncomfortable with President Duterte's policies, and as such are imputing a large risk premium on the currency. Is the PHP attractive? On valuation alone, it is. However, the current account dynamics are expected to become increasingly troubling. The economy is in fine shape and the trade deficit could continue to widen as imports get a lift from strong domestic demand - something that could infringe on the PHP's attractiveness. However, on the positive side, the PHP has historically displayed a robust negative correlation with commodity prices, energy in particular. This suggests that if commodity prices experience a period of relapse, the PHP could benefit. The best way to take advantage of these dynamics is to not buy the PHP outright against the USD but instead to buy it against EM currencies levered to commodity prices like the MYR or the CLP. The Singapore Dollar Chart 20The SGD's Decline Is Not Over The Singapore dollar remains pricey (Chart 20). However, this is no guarantee of upcoming weakness. After all, the SGD is the main tool used by the Monetary Authority of Singapore to control monetary policy. Moreover, the MAS targets a basket of currencies versus the SGD. Based on these dynamics, historically the SGD has displayed a low beta versus the USD. Essentially, it is a defensive currency within the EM space. The SGD has historically moved in tandem with commodity prices. This makes sense. Commodity prices are a key input in Singapore inflation, and commodity prices perform well when global industrial activity and global trade are strong. This means that not only do rising commodity prices require a higher SGD to combat inflation, higher commodity prices materialize in an environment where this small trading nation is supported by potent tailwinds. Additionally, Singapore loan growth correlates quite closely with commodity prices, suggesting that strong commodity prices result in important amounts of savings from commodity producers being recycled in the Singaporean financial system. To prevent Singapore's economy from overheating in response to these liquidity inflows, MAS is being forced to tighten policy through a higher SGD. Today, with global growth softening and global trade likely to deteriorate, the Singaporean economy is likely to face important headwinds. Tightening monetary policy in the U.S. and in China will create additional headwinds. As a result, so long as the USD has upside, the SGD is likely to have downside versus the greenback. On a longer-term basis, we would expect the correction of the SGD's overvaluation to not happen versus the dollar but versus other EM currencies. The Hong Kong Dollar Chart 21The HKD Is Fairly Valued The troughs and peaks in the HKD follow the gyrations of the U.S. dollar. This is to be expected as the HKD has been pegged to the USD since 1983. Like the USD, it was expensive in early 2017, but now it is trading closer to fair value (Chart 21). Additionally, due to the large weight of the yuan in the trade-weighted HKD, the strength in the CNY versus the USD has had a greater impact on taming the HKD's overvaluation than it has on the USD's own mispricing. Moreover, the HKD is trading very close to the lower bound of its peg versus the USD, which has also contributed to the correction of its overvaluation. Even when the HKD was expensive last year, we were never worried that the peg would be undone. Historically, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority has shown its willingness to tolerate deflation when the HKD has been expensive. The most recent period was no different. Moreover, the HKMA has ample fire power in terms of reserves to support the HKD if the need ever existed. Ultimately, the stability created by the HKD peg is still essential to Hong Kong's relevance as a financial center for China, especially in the face of the growing preeminence of Shanghai and Beijing as domestic financial centers. As a result, while we could see the HKD become a bit more expensive over the remainder of 2018 as the USD rallies a bit further, our long-term negative view on the USD suggests that on a multiyear basis the HKD will only cheapen. The Saudi Riyal Chart 22The SAR Remains Expensive Like the HKD, the riyal is pegged to the USD. However, unlike the HKD, the softness in the USD last year was not enough to purge the SAR's overvaluation (Chart 22). Ultimately, the kingdom's poor productivity means that the SAR needs more than a 15% fall in the dollar index to make the Saudi economy competitive. However, this matters little. Historically, when the SAR has been expensive, the Saudi Arabia Monetary Authority has picked the HKMA solution: deflation over devaluation. Ultimately, Saudi Arabia is a country that imports all goods other than energy products. With a young population, a surge in inflation caused by a falling currency is a risk to the durability of the regime that Riyadh is not willing to test. Moreover, SAMA has the firepower to support the SAR, especially when the aggregate wealth of the extended royal family is taken into account. Additionally, the rally in oil prices since February 2016 has put to rest worries about the country's fiscal standing. On a long-term basis, the current regime wants to reform the economy, moving away from oil and increasing productivity growth. This will be essential to supporting the SAR and decreasing its overvaluation without having to resort to deflation. However, it remains to be seen if Crown Prince Mohamed Bin Salman's ambitious reforms can in fact be implemented and be fruitful. Much will depend on this for the future stability of the riyal. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 For a more detailed discussion of the various variables incorporated in the models, please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "Assessing Fair Value In FX Markets", dated February 26, 2016, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 2 For a more detailed discussion of the various variables incorporated in the models, please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "Assessing Fair Value In FX Markets", dated February 26, 2016, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Yen: QQE Is Dead! Long Live YCC!", dated January 12, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary

Special Report

Highlights Investors are underestimating the risks of U.S.-Iran tensions; The Obama administration's 2015 deal resulted in Iran curbing aggressive regional behavior that threatened global oil supply; The U.S. negotiating position vis-à-vis Iran has not improved; Unlike North Korea, Iran can retaliate against the Trump administration's "Maximum Pressure" doctrine - particularly in Iraq; U.S.-Iran conflicts will negatively affect global oil supply, critical geographies, and sectarian tensions - hence a geopolitical risk premium is warranted. Our Commodity & Energy Strategy (CES) desk is using a new ensemble forecast, which takes its 2H18 Brent forecast to $76/bbl from an average $78/bbl, and WTI to $70/bbl from $72/bbl. For next year, CES's Brent forecast goes to $73/bbl from $80/bbl, and WTI goes to $67/bbl from $72/bbl. CES expects higher volatility, as well. Feature Following the roll-out of our oil-price ensemble model last week, we are publishing a Special Report written by our colleague Marko Papic, who runs BCA's Geopolitical Strategy (GPS) service. This report explores the more nuanced aspects of the U.S. - Iran sanctions conflict, and why the contest for Iraq is important for investors. We also summarize our latest forecast. We trust you will find this analysis informative, Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity Strategist Commodity & Energy Strategy Tensions between the U.S. and Iran snuck up on the markets (Chart 1), even though President Trump's policy agenda was well telegraphed via rhetoric, action, and White House personnel moves.1 Still, investors doubt the market relevance of the U.S. withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the international agreement between Iran and the P5+1.2 Chart 1Iran: Nobody Was Paying Attention! Several reasons to fade the risks - and hence to fade any implications for global oil supply - have become conventional wisdom. These include the alleged ability of OPEC and Russia to boost production and Washington's supposed ineffectiveness without an internationally binding sanction regime. Chart 2BCA's Updated Ensemble Forecast:##BR##Brent Averages /bbl in 2H18 Our view is that investors and markets are underestimating the geopolitical, economic, and financial relevance of the U.S.-Iran tensions. First, the ideological rhetoric surrounding the original U.S.-Iran détente tends to be devoid of strategic analysis. Second, Iran's hard power capabilities are underestimated. Third, OPEC 2.0's ability to tap into its spare capacity is overestimated.3 CES's updated ensemble forecast takes its 2H18 Brent forecast to $76/bbl from an average $78/bbl previously, and its WTI forecast to $70/bbl from $72/bbl (Chart 2). For next year, CES's Brent forecast goes to $73/bbl from $80/bbl, and its WTI expectation goes to $67/bbl from $72/bbl. CES expects higher volatility, as well, as markets continue to process sometimes-conflicting news flows. This means spike to and through $80/bbl for Brent are more likely than markets currently anticipate. Why Did The U.S.-Iran Détente Emerge In 2015? Both detractors and defenders of the 2015 nuclear deal often misunderstand the logic of the deal. First, the defenders are wrong when they claim that the deal creates a robust mechanism that ensures that Iran will never produce a nuclear device. Given that the most critical components of the deal expire in 10 or 15 years, it is simply false to assert that the deal is a permanent solution. More importantly, Iran already reached "breakout capacity" in mid-2013, which means that it had already achieved the necessary know-how to become a nuclear power.4 We know because we wrote about it at the time, using the data of Iran's cumulative production of enriched uranium provided to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).5 In August 2013, Iran's stockpile of 20% enriched uranium, produced at the impregnable Fordow facility, reached 200kg (Chart 3). Chart 3Iran's Negotiating Leverage At that point, Israeli threats of attacking Iran became vacuous, as the Israeli air force lacked the necessary bunker-busting technology to penetrate Fordow.6 As we wrote in 2013, this critical moment gave Tehran the confidence to give up "some material/physical components of its nuclear program as it has developed the human capital necessary to achieve nuclear status."7 The JCPOA forced Iran to stop enriching uranium at the Fordow facility altogether and to give up its stockpile of uranium enriched at 20%. However, Iran only agreed to the deal because it had reached a level of technological know-how that has not been eliminated by mothballing centrifuges and "converting" facilities to civilian nuclear research. Iran is a nuclear power in all but name. Second, the detractors of the JCPOA are incorrect when they claim that Iran did not give up any regional hegemony when it signed the deal. This criticism focuses on Iran's expanded role in the Syrian Civil War since 2011, as well as its traditional patronage networks with the Lebanese Shia militants Hezbollah and with Yemen's Houthis. However, critics ignore several other, far more critical, fronts of Iranian influence: Strait of Hormuz: In 2012, Iran's nearly daily threats to close the Strait of Hormuz were very much a clear and present danger for global investors (Map 1). Although we argued in 2012 that Iran's capability was limited to a 10-day closure, followed by another month during which they could threaten the safe passage of vessels through the Strait, even such a short crisis would add a considerable risk premium to oil markets given that it would remove about 17-18 million bbl/day from global oil supply (Chart 4).8 Since 2012, Iran's capabilities to threaten the Strait have grown, while the West's anti-mine capabilities have largely stayed the same.9 Map 1Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province Is A Crucial Piece Of Real Estate Chart 4Geopolitical Crises And Global Peak Supply Losses Iraq: The key geographic buffer between Saudi Arabia and Iran is Iraq (Map 2). Iran filled the power vacuum created by the U.S. invasion almost immediately after Saddam Hussein's overthrow. It deployed members of the infamous Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) into Iraq to support the initial anti-American insurgency. Iran's support for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was critical following the American withdrawal in 2011, particularly as his government became increasingly focused on anti-Sunni insurgency. Map 2Iraq: A Buffer Between Saudi Arabia And Iran Bahrain: Home of the U.S. Fifth Fleet, Bahrain experienced social unrest in 2011. The majority of Bahrain's population are Shia, while the country is ruled by the Saudi-aligned, Sunni, Al Khalifa monarchy. The majority of Shia protests were at least rhetorically, and some reports suggest materially, supported by Iran. To quell the protests, and preempt any potential Iranian interference, Saudi Arabia intervened militarily with a Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Peninsula Shield Force. Eastern Province: Similar to the unrest in Bahrain, Shia protests engulfed Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province in 2011. The province is highly strategic, as it is where nearly all of Saudi oil production, processing, and transportation facilities are located (Map 1). Like Bahrain, it has a large Shia population. Saudi security forces cracked down on the uprising and have continued to do so, with paramilitary operations lasting into 2017. While Iranian involvement in the protests is unproven, it has been suspected. Anti-Israel Rhetoric: Under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran threatened Israel with destruction on a regular basis. While these were mostly rhetorical attacks, the implication of the threat was that any attack against Iran and its nuclear facilities would result in retaliation against U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf and Iraq and direct military action against Israel. Both defenders and detractors of the JCPOA are therefore mistaken. The JCPOA does not impact Iran's ability to achieve "breakout capacity" given that it already reached it in mid-2013. And Iran's regional influence has not expanded since the deal was signed in 2015. In fact, since the détente in 2015, and in some cases since negotiations between the Obama administration and Tehran began in 2013, Iran has been a factor of stability in the Middle East. Specifically, Iran has willingly: Stopped threatening the Strait of Hormuz (the last overt threats to close the Strait of Hormuz were made in 2012); Acquiesced to Nouri al-Maliki's ousting as Prime Minister of Iraq in 2014 and his replacement by the far more moderate and less sectarian Haider al-Abadi; Stopped meddling in Bahraini and Saudi internal affairs; Stopped threatening Israel's existence (although its material support for Hezbollah clearly continues and presents a threat to Israel's security); Participated in joint military operations with the U.S. military against the Islamic State, cooperation without which Baghdad would have most likely fallen to the Sunni radicals in late 2014. The final point is worth expanding on. After the fall of Mosul - Iraq's second largest city - to the Islamic State in May 2014, Iranian troops and military advisors on the ground in Iraq cooperated with the U.S. air force to arrest and ultimately reverse the gains by the radical Sunni terrorist group. Without direct Iranian military cooperation - and without Tehran's material and logistical support for the Iraqi Shia militias - the Islamic State could not have been eradicated from Iraq (Map 3). Map 3The Collapse Of A Would-Be Caliphate How did such a dramatic change in Tehran's foreign policy emerge between 2012 and 2015? Iranian leadership realized in 2012 that the U.S. military and economic threats against it were real. Internationally coordinated sanctions had a damaging effect on the economy, threatening to destabilize a regime that had experienced social upheaval in the 2009 Green Revolution (Chart 5). It therefore began negotiations almost immediately after the imposition of stringent economic sanctions in early and mid-2012.10 Chart 5Iran's Sanctions Had A Hard Bite To facilitate the negotiations, the Guardian Council of Iran disqualified President Ahmadinejad's preferred candidate for the 2013 Iranian presidential elections, while allowing Hassan Rouhani's candidacy.11 Rouhani, a moderate, won the June 2013 election in a landslide win, giving him a strong political mandate to continue the negotiations and, relatedly, to pursue economic development. Many commentators forget, however, that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Hosseini Khamenei allowed Rouhani to run in the first place, knowing full well that he would likely win. In other words, Rouhani's victory revealed the preferences of the Iranian regime to negotiate and adjust its foreign policy. Bottom Line: The 2015 U.S.-Iran détente traded American acquiescence in Iranian nuclear development - frozen at the point of "breakout capacity" - in exchange for Iran's cooperation on a number of strategically vital regional issues. As such, focusing on just the JCPOA, without considering the totality of Iranian behavior before and since the deal, is a mistake. Iran curbed its influence in several regional hot spots - almost all of which are critical to global oil supply. The Obama administration essentially agreed to Iran becoming a de facto nuclear power in exchange for Iran backing away from aggressive regional behavior. This included Iran's jeopardizing the safe passage of oil through the Strait of Hormuz either by directly threatening to close the channel or through covert actions in Bahrain and the Eastern Province. The U.S. also drove Iran to accept a far less sectarian Iraq, by forcing out the ardently pro-Tehran al-Maliki and replacing him with a prime minister far more acceptable to Saudi Arabia and Iraqi Sunnis. Why Did The U.S. Chose Diplomacy In 2011? The alternative to the above deal was some sort of military action against Iranian nuclear facilities. The U.S. contemplated such action in late 2011. Two options existed, either striking Iran's facilities with its own military or allowing Israel to do it themselves. One reason to choose diplomacy and economic sanctions over war was the limited capability of Israel to attack Iran alone.13 Israel does not possess strategic bombing capability. As such, it would have required a massive air flotilla of bomber-fighters to get to the Iranian nuclear facilities. While the Israeli air force has the capability to reach Iranian facilities and bomb them, their effectiveness is dubious and the ability to counter Iranian retaliatory capacity with follow-up strikes is non-existent. Chart 6Great Power Competition The second was the fact that a U.S. strike against Iran would be exceedingly complex. Compared to previous Israeli strikes against nuclear facilities in Iraq (Operation Opera 1981) and Syria (Operation Outside The Box 2007), Iran presented a much more challenging target. Its superior surface-to-air missile capability would necessitate a prolonged, and dangerous, suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD) mission. In parallel, the U.S. would have to preemptively strike Iran's ballistic missile launching pads as well as its entire navy, so as to obviate Iran's ability to retaliate against international shipping or the U.S. and its allies in the region. The U.S. also had a strategic reason to avoid entangling itself in yet another military campaign in the Middle East. The public was war-weary and the Obama administration gauged that in a world where global adversaries like China and Russia were growing in geopolitical power, avoiding another major military confrontation in a region of decreasing value to U.S. interests (thanks partly to growing U.S. shale oil production) was of paramount importance (Chart 6). Notable in 2011 was growing Chinese assertiveness throughout East Asia (please see the Appendix on page 24). Particularly alarming was the willingness of Beijing to assert dubious claims to atolls and isles in the South China Sea, a globally vital piece of real estate (Diagram 1). There was a belief - which has at best only partially materialized - that if the United States divested itself of the Middle East, then it could focus more intently on countering China's challenge to traditional U.S. dominance in East Asia and the Pacific. Diagram 1South China Sea As Traffic Roundabout Bottom Line: The Obama administration therefore chose a policy of military posturing toward Iran to establish a credible threat. The military option was signaled in order to get the international community - both allies and adversaries - on board with tough economic sanctions. The ultimate deal, the JCPOA, did not give the U.S. and its allies everything they wanted precisely because they did not enter the negotiations from a position of preponderance of power. Critics of the JCPOA ignore this reality and assume that going back to the status quo ante bellum will somehow improve the U.S. negotiating position. It won't. What Happens If The U.S.-Iran Détente Ends? The Trump administration is serious about applying its Maximum Pressure tactics on Iran. Buoyed by the successful application of this strategy in North Korea, the White House believes that it can get a better deal with Tehran. We do not necessarily disagree. It is indeed true that the U.S. is a far more powerful country than Iran, with a far more powerful military. On a long enough timeline, with enough pressure, it ought to be able to force Tehran to concede, assuming that credible threats are used.14 Unlike the Obama administration, the Trump administration will presumably rely on Israel far less, and on its own military capability a lot more, to deliver those threats, which should be more effective. The problem is that the timeline on which such a strategy would work is likely to be a lot longer with Iran than with North Korea. This is because Iran's retaliatory capabilities are far greater than the one-trick-pony Pyongyang, which could effectively only launch ballistic missiles and threaten all-out war with U.S. and its regional allies.15 While those threats are indeed worrisome, they are also vacuous as they would lead to a total war in which the North Korean regime would meet its demise. Iran has a far more effective array of potential retaliation that can serve a strategic purpose without leading to total war. As we listed above, it could rhetorically threaten the Strait of Hormuz or attempt to incite further unrest in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province. The key retaliation could be to take the war to Iraq. The just-concluded election in Iraq appears to have favored Shia political forces not allied to Iran, including the Alliance Towards Reform (Saairun) led by the infamous cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr (Chart 7). Surrounding this election, various Iranian policymakers and military leaders have said that they would not allow Iraq to drift outside of Iran's sphere of influence, a warning to the nationalist Sadr who has fought against both the American and Iranian military presence in his country. Iraq is not only a strategic buffer between Saudi Arabia and Iran, the two regional rivals, but also a critical source of global oil supply, having brought online about half as much new supply as U.S. shale since 2011 (Chart 8). If Iranian-allied Shia factions engage in an armed confrontation with nationalist Shias allied with Muqtada al-Sadr, such a conflict will not play out in irrelevant desert governorates, as the fight against the Islamic State did. Chart 7Iraqi Elections Favored Shiites But Not Iran Chart 8Iraq Critical To Global Oil Supply Instead, a Shia-on-Shia conflict would play out precisely in regions with oil production and transportation facilities. In 2008, for example, Iranian-allied Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki fought a brief civil war against Sadr's Mahdi Army in what came to be known as the "Battle of Basra." While Iran had originally supported Sadr in his insurgency against the U.S., it came to Maliki's support in that brief but deadly six-day conflict. Basra is Iraq's chief port through which much of the country's oil exports flow. Iraq may therefore become a critical battleground as Iran retaliates against U.S. Maximum Pressure. From Iran's perspective, holding onto influence in Iraq is critical. It is the transit route through which Iran has established an over-land connection with its allies in Syria and Lebanon (Map 4). Threatening Iraqi oil exports, or even causing some of the supply to come off-line, would also be a convenient way to reduce the financial costs of the sanctions. A 500,000 b/d loss of exports - at an average price of $70 per barrel (as Brent has averaged in 2018) - could roughly be compensated by an increase in oil prices by $10 per barrel, given Iran's total exports. As such, Iran, faced with lost supply due to sanctions, will have an incentive to make sure that prices go up (i.e., that rivals do not simply replace Iranian supply, keeping prices more or less level). The easiest way to accomplish this, to add a geopolitical risk premium to oil prices, is through the meddling in Iraqi affairs. Map 4Iran Needs Iraq To Project Power Through The Levant It is too early to forecast with a high degree of confidence precisely how the U.S.-Iran confrontation will develop. However, Diagram 2 offers our take on the path towards retaliation. Diagram 2Iran-U.S. Tensions Decision Tree The critical U.S. sanctions against Iran will become effective on November 4 (Box 1). We believe that the Trump administration is serious and that it will force European allies, as well as South Korea and Japan, to cease imports of oil from Iran. China will be much harder to cajole. Box 1: Iranian Sanction Timeline President Trump issued a National Security Presidential Memorandum to re-impose all U.S. sanctions lifted or waived in connection with the JCPOA. The Office of Foreign Assets Control expects all sanctions lifted under the JCPOA to be re-imposed and in full effect after November 4, 2018. However, there are two schedules by which sanctions will be re-imposed, a 90-day and 180-day wind-down periods.1 Sanctions Re-Imposed After August 6, 2018 The first batch of sanctions that will be re-imposed will come into effect 90 days after the announced withdrawal from the JCPOA. These include: Sanctions on direct or indirect sale, supply, or transfer to or from Iran of several commodities (including gold), semi-finished metals, and industrial process software; Sanctions on the purchase or acquisition of U.S. dollar banknotes by the government of Iran; Sanctions on trade in Iranian currency and facilitation of the issuance of Iranian sovereign debt; Sanctions on Iran's automotive sector; Sanctions on export or re-export to Iran of commercial passenger aircraft and related parts. Sanctions Re-Imposed After November 4, 2018 The second batch of sanctions will come into effect 180 days after the announced Trump administration JCPOA withdrawal decision. These include: Sanctions on Iranian port operators, shipping, and shipbuilding activities; Sanctions against petroleum-related transactions with the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), Naftiran Intertrade Company (NICO), and National Iranian Tanker Company (NITC); Sanctions against the purchase of petroleum, petroleum products, or petrochemical products from Iran; Sanctions on transactions and provision of financial messaging services by foreign financial institutions with the Central Bank of Iran; Sanctions on Iran's energy sector; Sanctions on the provision of insurance, reinsurance, and underwriting services. 1a Please see the U.S. Treasury Department, "Frequently Asked Questions Regarding the Re-Imposition of Sanctions Pursuant to the May 8, 2018, National Security Presidential Memorandum Relating to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)," dated May 8, 2018, available at www.treasury.gov. By Q1 2019, the impact on Iranian oil exports will be clear. We suspect that Iran will, at that point, have the choice of either relenting to Trump's Maximum Pressure, or escalating tensions through retaliation. We give the latter a much higher degree of confidence and suspect that a cycle of retaliation and Maximum Pressure would lead to a conditional probability of war between Iran and the U.S. of around 20%. This is a significant number, and it is critical if President Trump wants to apply credible threats of war to Iran. Bottom Line: Unlike North Korea, Iran has several levers it can use to retaliate against U.S. Maximum Pressure. Iran agreed to set these levers aside as negotiations with the Obama administration progressed, and it has kept them aside since the conclusion of the JCPOA. It is therefore easy for Tehran to resurrect them against the Trump administration. Critical among these levers is meddling in Iraq's internal affairs. Not only is Iraq critical to Iran's regional influence; it is also key to global oil supply. We suspect that a cycle of Iranian retaliation and American Maximum Pressure raises the probability of U.S.-Iran military confrontation to 20%. We will be looking at several key factors in assessing whether the U.S. and Iran are heading towards a confrontation. To that end, we have compiled a U.S.-Iran confrontation checklist (Table 1). Table 1Will The U.S. Attack Iran? Investment Implications Over the past several years, there have been many geopolitical crises in the Middle East. We have tended to fade most of them, from a perspective of a geopolitical risk premium applied to oil prices. This is because we always seek the second derivative of any geopolitical event. In the context of the Middle East, by "second derivative" we mean that we are interested in whether the market impact of a new piece of information - of a new geopolitical event - will amount to more than just a random perturbation with ephemeral, decaying, market implications. To determine the potential of new information to catalyze a persistent market risk premium or discount, we investigate whether it changes the way things change in a given region or context. In 2015, we identified three factors that we believe are critical for a geopolitical event in the Middle East to have such second derivative implications, and thus global market implications.16 These are: Oil supply: The event should impact current global oil supply either directly or through a clear channel of contagion. Renewed sanctions against Iran do so directly. So would Iranian retaliation in Iraq or the Persian Gulf. Geography: The event should occur in a geography that is of existential significance to one of the regional or global players. Re-imposed sanctions obviously directly impact Iran as they could increase domestic political crisis. A potential Iranian proxy-war in Iraq would be highly relevant to Saudi Arabia, which considers Iraq as a vital buffer with Iran. Sectarian contagion: The event should exacerbate sectarian conflict - Sunni vs. Shia - which is more likely to lead contagion than tribal conflict such as the Libyan Civil War. A renewed U.S.-Iran tensions check all of our factors. The risk is therefore real and should be priced by the market through a geopolitical risk premium. In addition, Iranian sanctions could tighten up the outlook for oil markets in 2019 by 400,000-600,000 b/d, reversing most of the production gains that Iran has made since 2016 (Chart 9). This is a problem given that the enormous oversupply of crude oil and oil products held in inventories has already been significantly cut. BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy and Energy Sector Strategy teams believe that global petroleum inventories will be further reduced in 2019 (Chart 10). Chart 9Current And Future Iran##BR##Production Is At Risk Chart 10Tighter Markets And Lower Inventories,##BR##Keep Forward Curves Backwardated What about the hints from the OPEC 2.0 alliance that they would surge production in light of supply loss from Iran? Oil prices fell on the belief OPEC 2.0 could easily restore 1.8 MMb/d of production that they agreed to hold off the market since early 2017. Our commodity strategists have always considered the full number to be an illusion that consists of 1.2 MMb/d of voluntary cuts and around 500,000 b/d of natural production declines that were counted as "cuts" so that the cartel could project an image of greater collaboration than it actually achieved (Chart 11). In fact, some of the lesser "contributors" to the OPEC cut pledged to lower 2017 production by ~400,000 b/d, but are facing 2018 production levels that are projected to be ~700,000 b/d below their 2016 reference levels, and 2019 production levels are estimated to decline by another 200,000 b/d (Chart 12). Furthermore, renewed Iran-U.S. tensions may only be the second-most investment-relevant geopolitical risk for oil markets. Our commodity team expects Venezuelan production to fall to 1.2 MMb/d by the end of 2018 and to 1 MMb/d by the end of 2019, but these production levels could turn out to be optimistic (Chart 13). Chart 11Primary OPEC 2.0 Members Are Producing##BR##1.0 MMb/d Below Pre-Cut Levels Chart 12Secondary##BR##OPEC 2.0 Chart 13Venezuela Is##BR##A Bigger Risk 2H18, 2019 Oil Forecasts BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy updated its forecast last week, after the leaders of OPEC 2.0 indicated member states would be considering putting as much as 1mm b/d back on the market, following the price run-up accurately called from the beginning of this year. KSA and Russian are not being explicit about what they intend to do. In the background are the U.S.'s renewed Iran sanctions discussed above, which could remove ~ 500k b/d from the export markets by the end of 1H19, and the increasingly likely collapse of Venezuela's exports, which could remove ~ 1mm b/d. Against this, we have production in the U.S. shales increasing this year and next by ~ 1.3 - 1.4mm b/d to offset these potential losses, but even there we're seeing problems getting the shale oil out of the U.S.17 That's why CES went to an ensemble forecast, and will keep it in place as the market continues to process these conflicting signals (Chart 14). While some production will be restored to the market this year, it will be a drawn-out process, given CES's view OPEC 2.0 does not want to undo the hard work it took to drain OECD oil inventories (Chart 15). CES's Brent forecast was lowered $2/bbl in 2H18 and $7/bbl in 2019 to $76/bbl and to $73/bbl, respectively. CES's WTI forecast for 2H18 also was lowered $2/bbl to $70/bbl, while our 2019 forecast is now at $67/bbl, down $5/bbl vs. our previous forecast. Chart 14Factors In BCA's Ensemble Forecast Chart 15Balances Will Loosen If Supply Increases CES continues to expect continued strength on the demand side, with global oil consumption growing 1.7mm b/d. This will be driven by steady income growth in EM economies. One of the principal gauges CES uses to assess EM demand - import volumes - continues to move higher on a year-on-year basis, signaling incomes continue to expand (Chart 16). EM growth accounts for 1.3 of the 1.7mm b/d of growth we're expecting in 2018 and 2019. In forthcoming research, CES will be looking more deeply into the evolution of demand and the threat - if any - higher prices pose for EM growth. As was noted in last week's CES publication,17 consumers in many states no longer are shielded from high oil prices, as they were in the past: Governments around the world used the collapse in prices beginning in 2014 to remove/reduce fuel subsidies. This changes the dynamics of EM oil demand considerably, even if governments feel compelled to step into markets and order suppliers to not pass through the entire price increase. OPEC 2.0's leaders - KSA and Russia - appear united in their view of what is required to keep oil markets balanced over the long haul, so as not to disincentivize consumers from purchasing cars and trucks and the motor fuel required to run them. But over the short term, their goals differ. KSA is looking to IPO Saudi Aramco - next year, according to the latest reports - and this sale would most definitely benefit from higher prices. Indeed, KSA's oil minister Khalid al-Falih appeared to be comfortable with prices pushing toward $80/bbl recently. Russia's energy minister, Alexander Novak, has said in the past he favors an oil price somewhere between $50 and $60/bbl. CES continues to believe the dominant price risks remain on the upside - at 28.31% and 12.12%, markets continue to underestimate the probability Brent prices will trade above $80 and $90/bbl this year and next (Chart 17). Chart 16Strong EM Commodity Demand Expected,##BR##As Incomes And Imports Continue To Grow Chart 17Oil Markets Continue To Underestimate##BR##Upside Price Risks In 2H18 And 2019 Bottom Line: A renewal of U.S. - Iran tensions throws up real risks that are not being fully priced by the oil markets at present. They raise the probability global oil supplies out of the Middle East will be directly threatened, and that tensions in Iran and Iraq will flare into proxy wars. Such an outcome would be highly relevant to Saudi Arabia, which considers Iraq as a vital buffer with Iran. Lastly, rising tensions could exacerbate sectarian conflict in the Middle East as a whole, particularly along the Sunni - Shia divide, which is more likely to lead contagion than tribal conflict such as the Libyan Civil War. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Conlan, Senior Vice President Energy Sector Strategy mattconlan@bcaresearchny.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Watching Five Risks," dated January 24, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 The JCPOA was concluded in Vienna on July 14, 2015 between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States), plus Germany (the "+1" of the P5+1). 3 BCA's Senior Commodity & Energy Strategist Robert P. Ryan has given the name "OPEC 2.0" to the Saudi-Russian alliance that is focused on regaining a modicum of control over the rate at which U.S. shale-oil resources are developed. Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "KSA's, Russia's End Game: Contain U.S. Shale Oil," dated March 30, 2017; and "The Game's Afoot In Oil, But Which One?" dated April 6, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 "Breakout" nuclear capacity is defined here as having enough uranium enriched at lower levels, such as at 20%, to produce sufficient quantities of highly-enriched uranium (HEU) required for a nuclear device. The often-reported amount of 20% enriched uranium required for breakout capacity is 200kg. However, the actual amount of uranium required depends on the number of centrifuges being employed and their efficiency. In our 2013 report, we gauged that Iran could produce enough HEU within 4-5 weeks at the Fordow facility to develop a weapon, which means that it had effectively reached "breakout capacity." 5 Please see International Atomic Energy Agency, "Implementation Of The NPT Safeguards Agreement And Relevant Provisions Of Security Council Resolutions In The Islamic Republic Of Iran," IAEA Board Report, dated August 28, 2013, available at www.iaea.org. 6 Although, in a move designed to increase pressure on Iran and its main trade partners, the Obama administration sold Israel the GBU-28 bunker-busting ordinance. That specific ordinance is very powerful, but still not capable enough to penetrate Fordow. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Middle East: Paradigm Shift," dated November 13, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Special Report, "Crisis In The Persian Gulf: Investment Implications," dated March 1, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 There are four U.S. Navy Avenger-class minesweepers based in Bahrain as part of the joint U.S.-U.K. TF-52. This number has been the same since 2012, when they were deployed to the region. 10 Particularly crippling for Iran's economy was the EU oil embargo imposed in January 2012, effective from July of that year, and the banning of Iranian financial institutions from participating in the SWIFT system in March 2012. 11 The Guardian Council of the Constitution is a 12-member, unelected body wielding considerable power in Iran. It has consistently disqualified reformist candidates from running in elections, which makes its approval of Rouhani's candidacy all the more significant. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Reality Check: Israel Will Not Bomb Iran (Ever)," dated August 14, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 The NATO war with Yugoslavia in 1999 reveals how challenging SEAD missions can be if the adversary refuses to engage its air defense systems. The U.S. and its NATO allies bombed Serbia and its forces for nearly three months with limited effectiveness against the country's surface-to-air capabilities. The Serbian military simply refused to turn on its radar installations, making U.S. AGM-88 HARM air-to-surface anti-radiation missiles, designed to home in on electronic transmissions coming from radar systems, ineffective. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Trump Re-Establishes America's 'Credible Threats,'" dated April 7, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Insights From The Road - The Rest Of The World," dated September 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Middle East: A Tale Of Red Herrings And Black Swans," dated October 14, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "OPEC 2.0 Guiding To Higher Output; Volatility Set To Rise ... Again," published May 31, 2018.It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Notable Clashes In The South China Sea (2010-18) Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017

Special Report

Highlights Investors are underestimating the risks of U.S.-Iran tensions; The Obama administration's 2015 deal resulted in Iran curbing aggressive regional behavior that threatened global oil supply; The U.S. negotiating position vis-à-vis Iran has not improved; Unlike North Korea, Iran can retaliate against the Trump administration's "Maximum Pressure" doctrine - particularly in Iraq; U.S.-Iran conflicts will negatively affect global oil supply, critical geographies, and sectarian tensions - hence a geopolitical risk premium is warranted. Average Brent and WTI oil prices should rise to $80/bbl and $72/bbl in 2019 even without adding the full range of events that will drive up the geopolitical risk premium. Risks lie to the upside. Feature Tensions between the U.S. and Iran snuck up on the markets (Chart 1), even though President Trump's policy agenda was well telegraphed via rhetoric, action, and White House personnel moves.1 Still, investors doubt the market relevance of the U.S. withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the international agreement between Iran and the P5+1.2 Chart 1Iran: Nobody Was Paying Attention! Several reasons to fade the risks - and hence to fade any implications for global oil supply - have become conventional wisdom. These include the alleged ability of OPEC and Russia to boost production and Washington's supposed ineffectiveness without an internationally binding sanction regime. Our view is that investors and markets are underestimating the geopolitical, economic, and financial relevance of the U.S.-Iran tensions. First, the ideological rhetoric surrounding the original U.S.-Iran détente tends to be devoid of strategic analysis. Second, Iran's hard power capabilities are underestimated. Third, OPEC 2.0's ability to tap into its spare capacity is overestimated.3 To put some numbers on the difference between our view and the market's view, we rely on the implied option volatilities for crude oil futures.4 As Chart 2 illustrates, the oil markets are currently pricing in just under 30% probability that oil prices will exceed $80/bbl by year-end, and merely 14% that they will touch $90/bbl in the same timeframe. We believe these odds are too low and will take the other side of that bet. Chart 2The Market Continues To Underestimate High Oil Prices Why Did The U.S.-Iran Détente Emerge In 2015? Both detractors and defenders of the 2015 nuclear deal often misunderstand the logic of the deal. First, the defenders are wrong when they claim that the deal creates a robust mechanism that ensures that Iran will never produce a nuclear device. Given that the most critical components of the deal expire in 10 or 15 years, it is simply false to assert that the deal is a permanent solution. More importantly, Iran already reached "breakout capacity" in mid-2013, which means that it had already achieved the necessary know-how to become a nuclear power.5 We know because we wrote about it at the time, using the data of Iran's cumulative production of enriched uranium provided to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).6 In August 2013, Iran's stockpile of 20% enriched uranium, produced at the impregnable Fordow facility, reached 200kg (Chart 3). Chart 3Iran's Negotiating Leverage At that point, Israeli threats of attacking Iran became vacuous, as the Israeli air force lacked the necessary bunker-busting technology to penetrate Fordow.7 As we wrote in 2013, this critical moment gave Tehran the confidence to give up "some material/physical components of its nuclear program as it has developed the human capital necessary to achieve nuclear status."8 The JCPOA forced Iran to stop enriching uranium at the Fordow facility altogether and to give up its stockpile of uranium enriched at 20%. However, Iran only agreed to the deal because it had reached a level of technological know-how that has not been eliminated by mothballing centrifuges and "converting" facilities to civilian nuclear research. Iran is a nuclear power in all but name. Second, the detractors of the JCPOA are incorrect when they claim that Iran did not give up any regional hegemony when it signed the deal. This criticism focuses on Iran's expanded role in the Syrian Civil War since 2011, as well as its traditional patronage networks with the Lebanese Shia militants Hezbollah and with Yemen's Houthis. However, critics ignore several other, far more critical, fronts of Iranian influence: Strait of Hormuz: In 2012, Iran's nearly daily threats to close the Strait of Hormuz were very much a clear and present danger for global investors (Map 1). Although we argued in 2012 that Iran's capability was limited to a 10-day closure, followed by another month during which they could threaten the safe passage of vessels through the Strait, even such a short crisis would add a considerable risk premium to oil markets given that it would remove about 17-18 million bbl/day from global oil supply (Chart 4).9 Since 2012, Iran's capabilities to threaten the Strait have grown, while the West's anti-mine capabilities have largely stayed the same.10 Map 1Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province Is A Crucial Piece Of Real Estate Chart 4Geopolitical Crises And Global Peak Supply Losses Iraq: The key geographic buffer between Saudi Arabia and Iran is Iraq (Map 2). Iran filled the power vacuum created by the U.S. invasion almost immediately after Saddam Hussein's overthrow. It deployed members of the infamous Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) into Iraq to support the initial anti-American insurgency. Iran's support for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was critical following the American withdrawal in 2011, particularly as his government became increasingly focused on anti-Sunni insurgency. Map 2Iraq: A Buffer Between Saudi Arabia And Iran Bahrain: Home of the U.S. Fifth Fleet, Bahrain experienced social unrest in 2011. The majority of Bahrain's population are Shia, while the country is ruled by the Saudi-aligned, Sunni, Al Khalifa monarchy. The majority of Shia protests were at least rhetorically, and some reports suggest materially, supported by Iran. To quell the protests, and preempt any potential Iranian interference, Saudi Arabia intervened militarily with a Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Peninsula Shield Force. Eastern Province: Similar to the unrest in Bahrain, Shia protests engulfed Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province in 2011. The province is highly strategic, as it is where nearly all of Saudi oil production, processing, and transportation facilities are located (Map 1). Like Bahrain, it has a large Shia population. Saudi security forces cracked down on the uprising and have continued to do so, with paramilitary operations lasting into 2017. While Iranian involvement in the protests is unproven, it has been suspected. Anti-Israel Rhetoric: Under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran threatened Israel with destruction on a regular basis. While these were mostly rhetorical attacks, the implication of the threat was that any attack against Iran and its nuclear facilities would result in retaliation against U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf and Iraq and direct military action against Israel. Both defenders and detractors of the JCPOA are therefore mistaken. The JCPOA does not impact Iran's ability to achieve "breakout capacity" given that it already reached it in mid-2013. And Iran's regional influence has not expanded since the deal was signed in 2015. In fact, since the détente in 2015, and in some cases since negotiations between the Obama administration and Tehran began in 2013, Iran has been a factor of stability in the Middle East. Specifically, Iran has willingly: Stopped threatening the Strait of Hormuz (the last overt threats to close the Strait of Hormuz were made in 2012); Acquiesced to Nouri al-Maliki's ousting as Prime Minister of Iraq in 2014 and his replacement by the far more moderate and less sectarian Haider al-Abadi; Stopped meddling in Bahraini and Saudi internal affairs; Stopped threatening Israel's existence (although its material support for Hezbollah clearly continues and presents a threat to Israel's security); Participated in joint military operations with the U.S. military against the Islamic State, cooperation without which Baghdad would have most likely fallen to the Sunni radicals in late 2014. The final point is worth expanding on. After the fall of Mosul - Iraq's second largest city - to the Islamic State in May 2014, Iranian troops and military advisors on the ground in Iraq cooperated with the U.S. air force to arrest and ultimately reverse the gains by the radical Sunni terrorist group. Without direct Iranian military cooperation - and without Tehran's material and logistical support for the Iraqi Shia militias - the Islamic State could not have been eradicated from Iraq (Map 3). How did such a dramatic change in Tehran's foreign policy emerge between 2012 and 2015? Iranian leadership realized in 2012 that the U.S. military and economic threats against it were real. Internationally coordinated sanctions had a damaging effect on the economy, threatening to destabilize a regime that had experienced social upheaval in the 2009 Green Revolution (Chart 5). It therefore began negotiations almost immediately after the imposition of stringent economic sanctions in early and mid-2012.11 Map 3The Collapse Of A Would-Be Caliphate Chart 5Iran's Sanctions Had A Hard Bite To facilitate the negotiations, the Guardian Council of Iran disqualified President Ahmadinejad's preferred candidate for the 2013 Iranian presidential elections, while allowing Hassan Rouhani's candidacy.12 Rouhani, a moderate, won the June 2013 election in a landslide win, giving him a strong political mandate to continue the negotiations and, relatedly, to pursue economic development. Many commentators forget, however, that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Hosseini Khamenei allowed Rouhani to run in the first place, knowing full well that he would likely win. In other words, Rouhani's victory revealed the preferences of the Iranian regime to negotiate and adjust its foreign policy. Bottom Line: The 2015 U.S.-Iran détente traded American acquiescence in Iranian nuclear development - frozen at the point of "breakout capacity" - in exchange for Iran's cooperation on a number of strategically vital regional issues. As such, focusing on just the JCPOA, without considering the totality of Iranian behavior before and since the deal, is a mistake. Iran curbed its influence in several regional hot spots - almost all of which are critical to global oil supply. The Obama administration essentially agreed to Iran becoming a de facto nuclear power in exchange for Iran backing away from aggressive regional behavior. This included Iran's jeopardizing the safe passage of oil through the Strait of Hormuz either by directly threatening to close the channel or through covert actions in Bahrain and the Eastern Province. The U.S. also drove Iran to accept a far less sectarian Iraq, by forcing out the ardently pro-Tehran al-Maliki and replacing him with a prime minister far more acceptable to Saudi Arabia and Iraqi Sunnis. Why Did The U.S. Chose Diplomacy In 2011? The alternative to the above deal was some sort of military action against Iranian nuclear facilities. The U.S. contemplated such action in late 2011. Two options existed, either striking Iran's facilities with its own military or allowing Israel to do it themselves. One reason to choose diplomacy and economic sanctions over war was the limited capability of Israel to attack Iran alone.13 Israel does not possess strategic bombing capability. As such, it would have required a massive air flotilla of bomber-fighters to get to the Iranian nuclear facilities. While the Israeli air force has the capability to reach Iranian facilities and bomb them, their effectiveness is dubious and the ability to counter Iranian retaliatory capacity with follow-up strikes is non-existent. The second was the fact that a U.S. strike against Iran would be exceedingly complex. Compared to previous Israeli strikes against nuclear facilities in Iraq (Operation Opera 1981) and Syria (Operation Outside The Box 2007), Iran presented a much more challenging target. Its superior surface-to-air missile capability would necessitate a prolonged, and dangerous, suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD) mission.14 In parallel, the U.S. would have to preemptively strike Iran's ballistic missile launching pads as well as its entire navy, so as to obviate Iran's ability to retaliate against international shipping or the U.S. and its allies in the region. The U.S. also had a strategic reason to avoid entangling itself in yet another military campaign in the Middle East. The public was war-weary and the Obama administration gauged that in a world where global adversaries like China and Russia were growing in geopolitical power, avoiding another major military confrontation in a region of decreasing value to U.S. interests (thanks partly to growing U.S. shale oil production) was of paramount importance (Chart 6). Notable in 2011 was growing Chinese assertiveness throughout East Asia (please see the Appendix). Particularly alarming was the willingness of Beijing to assert dubious claims to atolls and isles in the South China Sea, a globally vital piece of real estate (Diagram 1). There was a belief - which has at best only partially materialized - that if the United States divested itself of the Middle East, then it could focus more intently on countering China's challenge to traditional U.S. dominance in East Asia and the Pacific. Chart 6Great Power Competition Diagram 1South China Sea As Traffic Roundabout Bottom Line: The Obama administration therefore chose a policy of military posturing toward Iran to establish a credible threat. The military option was signaled in order to get the international community - both allies and adversaries - on board with tough economic sanctions. The ultimate deal, the JCPOA, did not give the U.S. and its allies everything they wanted precisely because they did not enter the negotiations from a position of preponderance of power. Critics of the JCPOA ignore this reality and assume that going back to the status quo ante bellum will somehow improve the U.S. negotiating position. It won't. What Happens If The U.S.-Iran Détente Ends? The Trump administration is serious about applying its Maximum Pressure tactics on Iran. Buoyed by the successful application of this strategy in North Korea, the White House believes that it can get a better deal with Tehran. We do not necessarily disagree. It is indeed true that the U.S. is a far more powerful country than Iran, with a far more powerful military. On a long enough timeline, with enough pressure, it ought to be able to force Tehran to concede, assuming that credible threats are used.15 Unlike the Obama administration, the Trump administration will presumably rely on Israel far less, and on its own military capability a lot more, to deliver those threats, which should be more effective. The problem is that the timeline on which such a strategy would work is likely to be a lot longer with Iran than with North Korea. This is because Iran's retaliatory capabilities are far greater than the one-trick-pony Pyongyang, which could effectively only launch ballistic missiles and threaten all-out war with U.S. and its regional allies.16 While those threats are indeed worrisome, they are also vacuous as they would lead to a total war in which the North Korean regime would meet its demise. Iran has a far more effective array of potential retaliation that can serve a strategic purpose without leading to total war. As we listed above, it could rhetorically threaten the Strait of Hormuz or attempt to incite further unrest in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province. The key retaliation could be to take the war to Iraq. The just-concluded election in Iraq appears to have favored Shia political forces not allied to Iran, including the Alliance Towards Reform (Saairun) led by the infamous cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr (Chart 7). Surrounding this election, various Iranian policymakers and military leaders have said that they would not allow Iraq to drift outside of Iran's sphere of influence, a warning to the nationalist Sadr who has fought against both the American and Iranian military presence in his country. Iraq is not only a strategic buffer between Saudi Arabia and Iran, the two regional rivals, but also a critical source of global oil supply, having brought online about half as much new supply as U.S. shale since 2011 (Chart 8). If Iranian-allied Shia factions engage in an armed confrontation with nationalist Shias allied with Muqtada al-Sadr, such a conflict will not play out in irrelevant desert governorates, as the fight against the Islamic State did. Chart 7Iraqi Elections Favored Shiites But Not Iran Chart 8Iraq Critical To Global Oil Supply Instead, a Shia-on-Shia conflict would play out precisely in regions with oil production and transportation facilities. In 2008, for example, Iranian-allied Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki fought a brief civil war against Sadr's Mahdi Army in what came to be known as the "Battle of Basra." While Iran had originally supported Sadr in his insurgency against the U.S., it came to Maliki's support in that brief but deadly six-day conflict. Basra is Iraq's chief port through which much of the country's oil exports flow. Iraq may therefore become a critical battleground as Iran retaliates against U.S. Maximum Pressure. From Iran's perspective, holding onto influence in Iraq is critical. It is the transit route through which Iran has established an over-land connection with its allies in Syria and Lebanon (Map 4). Threatening Iraqi oil exports, or even causing some of the supply to come off-line, would also be a convenient way to reduce the financial costs of the sanctions. A 500,000 b/d loss of exports - at an average price of $70 per barrel (as Brent has averaged in 2018) - could roughly be compensated by an increase in oil prices by $10 per barrel, given Iran's total exports. As such, Iran, faced with lost supply due to sanctions, will have an incentive to make sure that prices go up (i.e., that rivals do not simply replace Iranian supply, keeping prices more or less level). The easiest way to accomplish this, to add a geopolitical risk premium to oil prices, is through the meddling in Iraqi affairs. Map 4Iran Needs Iraq To Project Power Through The Levant It is too early to forecast with a high degree of confidence precisely how the U.S.-Iran confrontation will develop. However, Diagram 2 offers our take on the path towards retaliation. Diagram 2Iran-U.S. Tensions Decision Tree The critical U.S. sanctions against Iran will become effective on November 4 (Box 1). We believe that the Trump administration is serious and that it will force European allies, as well as South Korea and Japan, to cease imports of oil from Iran. China will be much harder to cajole. BOX 1 Iranian Sanction Timeline President Trump issued a National Security Presidential Memorandum to re-impose all U.S. sanctions lifted or waived in connection with the JCPOA. The Office of Foreign Assets Control expects all sanctions lifted under the JCPOA to be re-imposed and in full effect after November 4, 2018. However, there are two schedules by which sanctions will be re-imposed, a 90-day and 180-day wind-down periods.1 Sanctions Re-Imposed After August 6, 2018 The first batch of sanctions that will be re-imposed will come into effect 90 days after the announced withdrawal from the JCPOA. These include: Sanctions on direct or indirect sale, supply, or transfer to or from Iran of several commodities (including gold), semi-finished metals, and industrial process software; Sanctions on the purchase or acquisition of U.S. dollar banknotes by the government of Iran; Sanctions on trade in Iranian currency and facilitation of the issuance of Iranian sovereign debt; Sanctions on Iran's automotive sector; Sanctions on export or re-export to Iran of commercial passenger aircraft and related parts. Sanctions Re-Imposed After November 4, 2018 The second batch of sanctions will come into effect 180 days after the announced Trump administration JCPOA withdrawal decision. These include: Sanctions on Iranian port operators, shipping, and shipbuilding activities; Sanctions against petroleum-related transactions with the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), Naftiran Intertrade Company (NICO), and National Iranian Tanker Company (NITC); Sanctions against the purchase of petroleum, petroleum products, or petrochemical products from Iran; Sanctions on transactions and provision of financial messaging services by foreign financial institutions with the Central Bank of Iran; Sanctions on Iran's energy sector; Sanctions on the provision of insurance, reinsurance, and underwriting services. 1 Please see the U.S. Treasury Department, "Frequently Asked Questions Regarding the Re-Imposition of Sanctions Pursuant to the May 8, 2018, National Security Presidential Memorandum Relating to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)," dated May 8, 2018, available at www.treasury.gov. By Q1 2019, the impact on Iranian oil exports will be clear. We suspect that Iran will, at that point, have the choice of either relenting to Trump's Maximum Pressure, or escalating tensions through retaliation. We give the latter a much higher degree of confidence and suspect that a cycle of retaliation and Maximum Pressure would lead to a conditional probability of war between Iran and the U.S. of around 20%. This is a significant number, and it is critical if President Trump wants to apply credible threats of war to Iran. Bottom Line: Unlike North Korea, Iran has several levers it can use to retaliate against U.S. Maximum Pressure. Iran agreed to set these levers aside as negotiations with the Obama administration progressed, and it has kept them aside since the conclusion of the JCPOA. It is therefore easy for Tehran to resurrect them against the Trump administration. Critical among these levers is meddling in Iraq's internal affairs. Not only is Iraq critical to Iran's regional influence; it is also key to global oil supply. We suspect that a cycle of Iranian retaliation and American Maximum Pressure raises the probability of U.S.-Iran military confrontation to 20%. We will be looking at several key factors in assessing whether the U.S. and Iran are heading towards a confrontation. To that end, we have compiled a U.S.-Iran confrontation checklist (Table 1). Table 1Will The U.S. Attack Iran? Investment Implications Over the past several years, there have been many geopolitical crises in the Middle East. We have tended to fade most of them, from a perspective of a geopolitical risk premium applied to oil prices. This is because we always seek the second derivative of any geopolitical event. In the context of the Middle East, by "second derivative" we mean that we are interested in whether the market impact of a new piece of information - of a new geopolitical event - will amount to more than just a random perturbation with ephemeral, decaying, market implications. To determine the potential of new information to catalyze a persistent market risk premium or discount, we investigate whether it changes the way things change in a given region or context. In 2015, we identified three factors that we believe are critical for a geopolitical event in the Middle East to have such second derivative implications, and thus global market implications.17 These are: Oil supply: The event should impact current global oil supply either directly or through a clear channel of contagion. Renewed sanctions against Iran do so directly. So would Iranian retaliation in Iraq or the Persian Gulf. Geography: The event should occur in a geography that is of existential significance to one of the regional or global players. Re-imposed sanctions obviously directly impact Iran as they could increase domestic political crisis. A potential Iranian proxy-war in Iraq would be highly relevant to Saudi Arabia, which considers Iraq as a vital buffer with Iran. Sectarian contagion: The event should exacerbate sectarian conflict - Sunni vs. Shia - which is more likely to lead contagion than tribal conflict such as the Libyan Civil War. A renewed U.S.-Iran tensions check all of our factors. The risk is therefore real and should be priced by the market through a geopolitical risk premium. In addition, Iranian sanctions could tighten up the outlook for oil markets in 2019 by 400,000-600,000 b/d, reversing most of the production gains that Iran has made since 2016 (Chart 9). This is a problem given that the enormous oversupply of crude oil and oil products held in inventories has already been significantly cut. BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy and Energy Sector Strategy teams believe that global petroleum inventories will be further reduced in 2019 (Chart 10). Chart 9Current And Future Iran##br## Production Is At Risk Chart 10Tighter Markets And Lower Inventories,##br## Keep Forward Curves Backwardated What about the hints from the OPEC 2.0 alliance that they would surge production in light of supply loss from Iran? Oil prices fell on the belief OPEC 2.0 could easily restore 1.8 MMb/d of production that they agreed to hold off the market since early 2017. Our commodity strategists have always considered the full number to be an illusion that consists of 1.2 MMb/d of voluntary cuts and around 500,000 b/d of natural production declines that were counted as "cuts" so that the cartel could project an image of greater collaboration than it actually achieved (Chart 11). In fact, some of the lesser "contributors" to the OPEC cut pledged to lower 2017 production by ~400,000 b/d, but are facing 2018 production levels that are projected to be ~700,000 b/d below their 2016 reference levels, and 2019 production levels are estimated to decline by another 200,000 b/d (Chart 12). Chart 11Primary OPEC 2.0 Members Are Producing##br## 1.0 MMb/d Below Pre-Cut Levels Chart 12Secondary OPEC 2.0 "Contributors" ##br##Can't Even Reach Their Quotas Furthermore, renewed Iran-U.S. tensions may only be the second-most investment-relevant geopolitical risk for oil markets. Our commodity team expects Venezuelan production to fall to 1.2 MMb/d by the end of 2018 and to 1 MMb/d by the end of 2019, but these production levels could turn out to be optimistic (Chart 13). BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy therefore projects that the combination of stable global demand, steady declines in Venezuela's crude oil output, and the loss of Iranian exports to U.S. sanctions in 2019 will lift the average Brent and WTI prices to $80 and $72/bbl respectively (Chart 14).18 This forecast, however, represents our baseline based on fundamentals of global oil supply and demand (Chart 15) and does not include our potential scenarios outlined in Diagram 2, which would obviously add additional geopolitical risk premium. Chart 13Venezuela Is A Bigger Risk Chart 14Brent Will Average $80/bbl In 2019 Chart 15Balances Tighter As Supply Falls For investors looking for equity-market exposure in this scenario, BCA's Energy Sector Strategy recommends overweighing U.S. shale producers and shale-focused service companies for investors looking for equity-market exposure to oil prices. Our colleague Matt Conlan, of the BCA Energy Sector Strategy, has broken down this recommendation into specific equity calls, which we encourage our clients to peruse.19 Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Matt Conlan, Senior Vice President Energy Sector Strategy mattconlan@bcaresearchny.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Watching Five Risks," dated January 24, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 The JCPOA was concluded in Vienna on July 14, 2015 between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States), plus Germany (the "+1" of the P5+1). 3 BCA's Senior Commodity & Energy Strategist Robert P. Ryan has given the name "OPEC 2.0" to the Saudi-Russian alliance that is focused on regaining a modicum of control over the rate at which U.S. shale-oil resources are developed. Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "KSA's, Russia's End Game: Contain U.S. Shale Oil," dated March 30, 2017; and "The Game's Afoot In Oil, But Which One?" dated April 6, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 We use Brent implied volatility - of at-the-money options of the selected futures contract - as an input to construct the cumulative normal density of future prices. Thus, the probability obtained is one where the terminal futures price, at the selected months, exceeds the strike price quoted. In order to derive this probability, we need the current market price of the selected future contract, the number of days to expiration, the strike price, and a measure of the volatility of this contract. 5 "Breakout" nuclear capacity is defined here as having enough uranium enriched at lower levels, such as at 20%, to produce sufficient quantities of highly-enriched uranium (HEU) required for a nuclear device. The often-reported amount of 20% enriched uranium required for breakout capacity is 200kg. However, the actual amount of uranium required depends on the number of centrifuges being employed and their efficiency. In our 2013 report, we gauged that Iran could produce enough HEU within 4-5 weeks at the Fordow facility to develop a weapon, which means that it had effectively reached "breakout capacity." 6 Please see International Atomic Energy Agency, "Implementation Of The NPT Safeguards Agreement And Relevant Provisions Of Security Council Resolutions In The Islamic Republic Of Iran," IAEA Board Report, dated August 28, 2013, available at www.iaea.org. 7 Although, in a move designed to increase pressure on Iran and its main trade partners, the Obama administration sold Israel the GBU-28 bunker-busting ordinance. That specific ordinance is very powerful, but still not capable enough to penetrate Fordow. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Middle East: Paradigm Shift," dated November 13, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Special Report, "Crisis In The Persian Gulf: Investment Implications," dated March 1, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 There are four U.S. Navy Avenger-class minesweepers based in Bahrain as part of the joint U.S.-U.K. TF-52. This number has been the same since 2012, when they were deployed to the region. 11 Particularly crippling for Iran's economy was the EU oil embargo imposed in January 2012, effective from July of that year, and the banning of Iranian financial institutions from participating in the SWIFT system in March 2012. 12 The Guardian Council of the Constitution is a 12-member, unelected body wielding considerable power in Iran. It has consistently disqualified reformist candidates from running in elections, which makes its approval of Rouhani's candidacy all the more significant. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Reality Check: Israel Will Not Bomb Iran (Ever)," dated August 14, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 The NATO war with Yugoslavia in 1999 reveals how challenging SEAD missions can be if the adversary refuses to engage its air defense systems. The U.S. and its NATO allies bombed Serbia and its forces for nearly three months with limited effectiveness against the country's surface-to-air capabilities. The Serbian military simply refused to turn on its radar installations, making U.S. AGM-88 HARM air-to-surface anti-radiation missiles, designed to home in on electronic transmissions coming from radar systems, ineffective. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Trump Re-Establishes America's 'Credible Threats,'" dated April 7, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Insights From The Road - The Rest Of The World," dated September 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Middle East: A Tale Of Red Herrings And Black Swans," dated October 14, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 18 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Brent, WTI Average $80, $72 Next Year; Upside Risk Dominates, $100/bbl Possible In 2019," dated May 24, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see BCA Energy Sector Strategy Weekly Report, "Geopolitical Certainty: OPEC Production Risks Are Playing To Shale Producers' Advantage," dated May 9, 2018, available at nrg.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Notable Clashes In The South China Sea (2010-18) Notable Clashes In The South China Sea (2010-18) (Continued) Notable Clashes In The South China Sea (2010-18) (Continued)