Monday, June 19, 2017

Long Meandering Commentary: Sector Rotation, Capitulation -- June 19, 2017

Disclaimer: this is not an investment site. Do not make any investment, financial, job, travel, or relationship decisions based on what you read here or think you may have read here.

I first noted this on November 23, 2016: gasoline demand "not particularly comforting."  At the time I do not recall this decline in gasoline demand being noted by the mainstream business media.


Since that post it has been pointed out frequently that US gasoline demand is weak but only recently has the mainstream press picked up on it.

The second thing that was picked up early by the blog: the OPEC cuts weren't cutting it. I don't know if this was the first post on this subject, but it was certainly one of the earlier posts (April 28, 2017). At the time, analysts were still optimistic about the "cut" buying into Saudi's public relations machine.

It was about this time that it was clear that regardless whether Saudi Arabia was cutting production or not (wink, wink), in fact, it was emptying its storage tanks and continuing to flood the US with oil (see more below). (Wow, that's a grammatically awful sentence but I've tried to correct it several times, and I've given up. I need to move on.)

Back to Saudi's production cuts (wink, wink) and US imports: I gave that a "Saudi Shenanigans" tag.

From twitter, 58 minutes ago (as of 6:32 a.m.):

Finally, the mainstream business media -- starting about two weeks ago -- has started talking about this: US gasoline demand is concerning; and, OPEC cuts aren't working.

Today, Rigzone addresses those two issues:
The sustained fall in oil prices over the past week is indicative of the consensus view that the 1.8 million barrel per day coordinated output cut among the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and non-OPEC is not deep enough to rebalance global oil markets in 2017, or even in 2018.
Also contributing to this bearish outlook are serious concerns around U.S. gasoline demand. In its Weekly Petroleum Status Report on Wednesday, the U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA) showed a surprise build to gasoline stocks for the week ending June 9.
The report also showed that gasoline demand in the United States had fallen week over week and was 5 percent lower than during the same period in 2016. Over the last four-week period, total motor gasoline consumption in the United States averaged 9.5 million barrels per day, which was 1.2 percent lower than the same period last year. OPEC cuts not cutting it and US gasoline demand not cutting it.
Note again, from the lede:
... the 1.8 million barrel per day coordinated output cut among the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and non-OPEC is not deep enough to rebalance global oil markets in 2017, or even in 2018...Over the last four-week period, total motor gasoline consumption in the United States averaged 9.5 million barrels per day, which was 1.2 percent lower than the same period last year...
I think that's the first time I've seen that in the mainstream business media so explicitly, that at the current rate of US crude oil supply / demand, "re-balancing" is not going to occur any time soon.

I started tracking this several months ago and have posted this chart (update: methodology was wrong in some parts of this table; it has been updated and corrected at this post):) several times showing how long it will take to "re-balance":

Week
Date
Drawdown
Storage
Weeks to RB
Week 0
Apr 26, 2017

529
180
Week 1
May 3, 2017
0.9
528
178
Week 2
May 10, 2017
6
522
29
Week 3
May 17, 2017
1.8
520.2
95
Week 4
May 24, 2017
4.4
515.8
38
Week 5
May 31, 2017
6.4
509.9
41
Week 6
June 7, 2017
-3.3
513.2
60
Week 7
June 14, 2017
1.7
511.5
63

By the way, when the mainstream business media talks about "re-balancing," they are talking about getting back to the "5-year-average," whatever that is. I don't know if I've seen the "5-year-average" noted. Whatever it is, it's skewed by the Saudi surge from 2014 to 2016, the first of two trillion-dollar mistakes by the Saudis. In fact, for meaningful "re-balancing" to occur and a return to more bullish crude oil prices we need to see US crude oil supplies fall back to the "historical average" -- a 21-day supply or about 350 million bbls.

Right now, the rate of drawdown, averaging 2.6 million bbls/week since April 26, 2017, means that it will take 63 weeks to "re-balance." That would be late 2018.

Now, Rigzone, today, is suggesting that "re-balancing" won't even happen in 2018. That's as far as I read. Let's go back and see if the writer supplies a "new date."

Nope: no new date is given when "re-balancing" might be reached.

In fact it's worse. Look at this:
Also weighing on prices was Wednesday’s report from the International Energy Agency (IEA), which projected 2018 oil supply from non-OPEC producers to grow by 1.5 million barrels per day (almost twice the increase estimated for 2017).
The significant uptick in estimated production growth for 2018 is due mostly to rising expected production from U.S. tight oil formations. The IEA estimated that demand would grow by 1.4 million barrels a day in 2018 – largely from China and India.
In case you missed it, based on estimates:
  • supply will grow by 1.5 million bopd
  • demand will grow by 1.4 million bopd
Does anyone see the problem?

Two other things are also noted in the Rigzone article, both of which I pointed out some time ago:
  • Saudi Arabia / OPEC made a huge mistake underestimating the amount of oil Nigeria and Libya could bring to the market (and exempting both countries from the agreement to cut OPEC production);
  • Saudi Arabia under-estimating US shale oil resiliency and ability to respond quickly (many analysts have said it would take months for US shale to ramp up; I've always thought it would only take weeks --  DUCs, choking back, amount of infrastructure that has been put in place since 2007)
Perhaps most interesting is the allusion to "Saudi Shenanigans." From the linked Rigzone article:
Saudi Arabia has committed to reducing its exports to the United States to under 1 million barrels per day during the summer months. In addition, the Kingdom has increased its pricing to Asian customers of its crude, which should have the effect of lowering export volumes.
Whether the move to decrease exports to the United States is an attempt at sleight of hand to convince oil markets that crude inventories are draining is up for debate. It should be noted that most crude traders essentially use U.S. crude inventory levels as a proxy for the health of global crude markets due to the availability and quality of data.
Many in the market believe that the Saudis may not be reducing its overall production levels, and could in fact, possibly be using crude that was otherwise destined for the United States as feedstock for power generation in-country – when demand for air-conditioning surges during the summer months.
Remember: Saudi Arabia HAS to cut imports to the US during the summer months -- all things being equal -- if  the kingdom cuts production (wink, wink). Saudi has decreased its crude oil inventories significantly and Saudi's domestic consumption of oil surges in the summer months to provide electricity to run air conditioners.

So, where does this lead us?

Disclaimer: this is not an investment site. Do not make any investment, financial, travel, job, or relationship decisions based on what you read at the blog or what you may have thought you read at the blog.

So, for investors, where does this lead us? The word I have not yet seen in the mainstream business press is "capitulation."

Share prices for oil companies and oil service companies have fallen dramatically since 2014, but the fall has been fairly orderly.

But the Amazon-Whole Foods announcement may accelerate what investment analysts call "sector rotation," when a shift from one sector, let's say the retail sector, to another sector, let's say the tech sector occurs.

Hold that thought.

Generally, oil prices and the US stock market tend to track each other fairly closely. Not always, but generally. Some months ago the price of crude oil and the stock market seemed to track each other. But about a month ago (maybe earlier, I forget) the price of crude oil and the stock market diverged. It's been mentioned rarely on CNBC, that divergence.

It's no longer mentioned.

Today, futures are surging and if everything holds new records will be set -- possibly on all three major indices and yet it looks like WTI will fall again.

Are you still holding that thought? Two things come to mind:
  • capitulation; and,
  • sector rotation
I think I will stop here. I think most folks can connect the dots. Except to say I can hardly wait for the market to open today.

Futures are still up nicely.

Sunday, June 18, 2017

Making America Great Again -- June 18, 2017

Futures mean squat, but considering, the numbers are quite remarkable. Right now, as of 10:50 p.m. ET, futures:

  • S&P: up 5.50 points
  • Nasdaq: up 27.00 points
  • Dow: up 44.00 points

Zavanna's Shepherd Wells In Stony Creek

Locator: 10010SHEPHERD.

A reader suggested I take a look at these wells for completion strategies. Raw data here; done quickly; there could be typographical and factual errors. If this is important to you, go to the source. I will come back to these later. The wells:

  • 29510, IA/48 (no typo), Zavanna, Shepherd 3-11 4TFH, Stony Creek, 41 stages, 4.6 million lbs, t1/17; cum 98K 3/20; remains off line 3/21; cum 119K 10/23; off line 11/23; off line 2/25;
  • 29509, 125, Zavanna, Shepherd 3-11 3H, Stony Creek, 49 stages, 5.4 million lbs, t1/17; cum 237K 3/21; jump in production, 3/18; cum 276K 1/24; cum 284K 2/25;
  • 29508, 139, Zavanna, Shepherd 3-11 2TFH, Stony Creek, 50 stages, 6 million lbs, t12/16; cum 153K 1/21; remains off line 3/21; cum 179K 12/23; off line 1/24; remains off line 2/25;
  • 29507, 160, Zavanna, Shepherd 3-11 1H, Stony Creek, 50 stages, 7.1 million lbs, t1/17; cum 330K 3/21; cum 394K 1/2; cum 405K 2/25;



  • 21874, 540, Zavanna, Tony 1-3H, Stony Creek, short lateral, 20 stages, 2.3 million lbs, t8/12; cum 360K 3/21; (jump in production); was off line early 2019; back on line 6/19; cum 409K 1/24; cum 420K 2/25;
  • 21873, 640, Zavanna, Bengal 1-2H, Stony Creek, short lateral, 20 stages, 2.4 million lbs, t7/12; cum 324K 3/21; (jump in production); was off line early 2019; back on line 6/19; cum 361K 1/24; cum 370K 2/25;
  • 20111, 718, Zavanna, Wildcat 1-11H, Stony Creek, short lateral, 20 stages, 2.3 million lbs, t8/11; cum 319K 5/20; remains off line 1/21; produces small amount over five days, 3/21; cum 320K 3/21; cum 361K 1/24; cum 373K 2/25;
The graphic:

T

Production profiles. 

#20111:
PoolDateDaysBBLS OilRunsBBLS WaterMCF ProdMCF SoldVent/Flare
BAKKEN4-20173056134777104685945547127
BAKKEN3-2017223435328181573617323950
BAKKEN2-2017183091298877503451313053
BAKKEN1-2017295095490715246576731292206
BAKKEN12-2016174732454112961503747840
BAKKEN11-201623606655682589286437381919
BAKKEN10-20160000000
BAKKEN9-20161274459512598897100
BAKKEN8-201631147814412649246220000
BAKKEN7-2016311566153829682473192388
BAKKEN6-2016301430131517802360186845
BAKKEN5-20163115511576223124381747229

#21873:
PoolDateDaysBBLS OilRunsBBLS WaterMCF ProdMCF SoldVent/Flare
BAKKEN4-2017304841403010844583205385
BAKKEN3-2017294016363614060199001558
BAKKEN2-2017002870000
BAKKEN1-201724340334481542136233120145
BAKKEN12-2016288504841547358107461031019
BAKKEN11-20165438971515926711874
BAKKEN10-201669262135611123801149
BAKKEN9-20160000000
BAKKEN8-20162510603101
BAKKEN7-20163120281755267730291900667
BAKKEN6-20163023552110298737742361966
BAKKEN5-20163117701790191819001028410
BAKKEN4-20163017571490257826731887339

#21874:
PoolDateDaysBBLS OilRunsBBLS WaterMCF ProdMCF SoldVent/Flare
BAKKEN4-201730447543891181956895066176
BAKKEN3-20171418011726644716181201289
BAKKEN2-20177128912263420128211753
BAKKEN1-20172839463812183524427399614
BAKKEN12-20160074701791790
BAKKEN11-20164895028789910931
BAKKEN10-20160000000
BAKKEN9-20160000000
BAKKEN8-201613031500
BAKKEN7-20160000110
BAKKEN6-20161034334242840422431
BAKKEN5-2016311544151918101458786210
BAKKEN4-2016302056196422302453199511
BAKKEN3-2016312042187520721929145215

Wells Coming Off Confidential List Early This Week -- June 18, 2017

Wednesday, June 21, 2017
  • 29636, 1,673, EOG, Parshall 27-3332H, Parshall, 26 stages, 6.3 million lbs, t12/16; cum 63K 4/17; (#29635)
  • 29637, 1,103, EOG, Parshall 24-3332H, Parshall, 27 stages, 6.5 million lbs, t12/16; cum 39K 4/17; (#29635)
  • 32016, 1,554, Oasis, Rolfson S 5198 14-29 11T, Sivertson, Three Forks 1st bench, 50 stages, 4.1 million lbs, t12/16; cum 144K 4/17; [note first comment --
Natural gas gross revenue from this well [#332016] is slightly over 3/4 million bucks at $2.58/mmbtu.
This was the recent price at the Watford City transfer point (Northern Border) as per the recent Director's Cut.
Adds up.
  • 32888, drl, MRO, Forsman USA 44-22H, Antelope, no production data, (#19133)
Tuesday, June, 20, 2017
  • 26432, 1,388, WPX, Beaks 36-35HA, Mandaree, 61 stages, 9.1 million lbs, t4/17; cum 23K 4/17 (27 days), (#19289)
  • 32438, 1,027, Nine Point Energy (formerly Triangle Petroleum), Little Muddy 17H, Williston, 31 stages, 10 million lbs; TD, 20,940 feet; spud date, July 20, 2016; TD, August 3, 2016, t1/17; cum 55K 4/17;  
  • 32889, SI/NC, MRO, Lockwood USA 44-22TFH, Antelope, no production data, , (#19144)
  • 32921, SI/NC, XTO, Nygaard Federal 13X-5AXD, Lost Bridge, no production data, (#21702)
Monday, June 19, 2017
  • 32820, 602, WPX, Beaks 36-35HW, Mandaree, Three Forks, 61 stages, 6.9 million lbs, t4/17 cum -- , (#19289 -- significant jump, 4/17)
  • 32890, drl, MRO, Murphy USA 34-22TFH-2B, Antelope, no production data, (#19144) 
Sunday, June 18, 2017
  • 32209, 1,774, Oasis, Rolfson S 5198 43-20 9B, Sivertson, 50 stages, 4 million lbs, t12/16; cum 153K 4/17;
Saturday, June 17, 2017
  • 32891, drl, MRO, Begola USA 34-22H, Antelope, no production data, (#19144)
****************************************

 32209, see above, Oasis, Rolfson S 5198 43-20 9B, Sivertson:

DateOil RunsMCF Sold
4-20172907370869
3-20173296667515
2-20173353755609
1-20174292274174
12-20161426723419

32820, see above, WPX, Beaks 36-35HW, Mandaree:

DateOil RunsMCF Sold
4-20171583010634

32438, see above, Nine Point Energy (formerly Triangle Petroleum), Little Muddy 17H:

DateOil RunsMCF Sold
4-2017167936439
3-201789360
1-2017175980
12-2016113590

26432, see above, WPX, Beaks 36-35HA, Mandaree:

DateOil RunsMCF Sold
4-20172201714044

32016, see above, Oasis, Rolfson S 5198 14-29 11T, Sivertson:

DateOil RunsMCF Sold
4-20173031665890
3-20173036161934
2-20172880156193
1-20173983364498
12-20161415321123

29637, see above, EOG, Parshall 24-3332H, Parshall:

DateOil RunsMCF Sold
4-201776034675
3-201779642282
2-201758492320
1-2017123261963
12-20165523869

29636, see below, EOG, Parshall 27-3332H, Parshall:

DateOil RunsMCF Sold
4-2017149489718
3-2017153725886
2-2017128954079
1-2017119435216
12-201677511107

Happy Father's Day -- June 18, 2017

Active rigs:

$44.686/18/201706/18/201606/18/201506/18/201406/18/2013
Active Rigs572878189184

Not fake news: poll. I don't watch mainstream media but I doubt this is being reported.

******************************
Amazon Whole Foods

Disclaimer: I love Amazon. I "accidentally" signed up for Amazon Prime and love it.

The price of membership will probably increase; I doubt that will adversely affect the overall number of memberships.

Disclaimer: I never shop at Whole Foods. When we lived in San Antonio, there was a Whole Foods grocer within walking distance of our house; we shopped there once in awhile (they are really, really nice stores) but they were just too expensive. And in Texas, Central Market, HEB, Tom Thumb, and Albertson's are all great alternatives to Whole Foods.

Some time ago I posted:
Yahoo!Finance posted this story a few hours before Amazon announced quarterly earnings: why it doesn't matter that Amazon's most popular service costs it billions. Data points:
  • most popular service: Amazon Prime
  • 80 million users (apparently US users)
  • up 38% from a year ago
  • if accurate, that suggests that nearly two-thirds of American households have Prime subscriptions
  • (wow, wouldn't the political parties love to have those address lists; maybe they do)
  • Prime members spend an average of $1,300 annually; vs $700 for typical non-Prime member
  • much, much more than just fast delivery
More at the link.
By the way, I don't know what a "non-Prime member" is -- certainly it can't be everyone who has ever ordered anything from Amazon. Whatever.

I am fascinated with the Amazon-Whole Foods story.

Once Amazon made the decision to buy a grocer, it's interesting to ask why Amazon selected Whole Foods. It helped that activist investors in Whole Foods were looking for a buyer. On the other side of the coin, Amazon would certainly want to look for a grocer that "fit." According to the business media, almost everyone who shops at Whole Foods is also an Amazon Prime member. If the deal goes through, Whole Foods becomes the company store for Amazon Prime credit card holders. LOL. Margins already marginal in the grocery business and Amazon Prime get 5% off Amazon purchases; whether this will apply to in-store purchases is yet to be seen. But imagine if one gets 5% cash rewards on all grocery purchases. The average American family spends $4,000/year for groceries (and from the linked site, it suggests this is not simply groceries, but all things one buys at a grocery store these days) amounts to $200/year (5% cash-back) -- a trivial amount, except that it's always nice to see.

Omaha Steaks, on the other hand, and other retailers, rewards customers with points that can only be used at Omaha Steaks, making those retailers less appealing. Speaking of Omaha Steaks, the "word on the street" is that Costo has some of the best meat selections out there, and certainly, based on my experience with frozen steaks from Omaha, freezing is not an issue when it comes to perishables, unlike, fruits, vegetables, and flowers.

The "go-to" credit card in my wallet is the Amazon Prime credit card. I don't know if it's metal or not, but it is heavier than any of my other credit cards, and several retail clerks have commented on how heavy it is. It does get one's attention. I assume other "high-end" credit cards to the same thing.

I assume credit cards are a huge money-maker for those that issue them. I assume that most folks who shop at Whole Foods use their Amazon Prime credit card if they use a credit card, and it's hard to believe that Jeff Bezos didn't take that into account when he announced plans to buy Whole Foods.

So much of this seems about Jeff Bezos asking: if we buy a grocer, which grocer do we buy that our Amazon Prime members like the most? It just seems that in the retail arena of his business, Amazon Prime is where over-riding interests lie.

Talk about data mining.

I think it will be quite interesting to see how Amazon "leverages" Whole Foods if the regulators approve the deal. Trump will everything he can to stop the deal based on his campaign rhetoric. so we'll see.
******************************
The NY Times On Amazon-Whole Foods

Link here:
Yet if there’s one thing I’ve learned about Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s founder and chief executive, after years of watching Amazon, it’s that he doesn’t spend a lot of time predicting future possibilities.
He is instead consumed with improving the present reality on the ground, especially as seen through a customer’s eyes. The other thing to know about Mr. Bezos is that he is a committed experimentalist. His main way of deciding what Amazon should do next is to try stuff out, see what works, and do more of that.
So the best way to think of this deal is to look at Whole Foods as a kind of guinea pig for Amazon — a pricey, organically sourced one, perhaps, but a guinea pig all the same.
The article fails to mention "data mining."

The article does note this:
The Whole Foods deal represents less than 3 percent of its $470 billion market cap: not just a guinea pig, but a cheap one, too.
********************************* 
Destination Shopping

A few weeks ago, when discussing the demise of big box stores in the US, a "talking head" on CNBC suggested that for retail to survive, a focus on "destination shopping" is a must. I am curious how Bezos plans to improve the grocery shopping experience at Whole Foods. Or is he is simply looking at Whole Foods as distribution points?

Disclaimer: this is not an investment site. Do not make any investment, financial, job, travel, or relationship decisions based on what you read here or what you think you may have read here.

I think the sell-off in the other grocers was completely over-done. I wouldn't touch shares in some of the grocers, but certainly this offers a buying opportunity in some. WMT, down 5%, is selling at a P/E of 17 with a dividend of almost 3%. WMT will hardly be affected by Amazon-Whole Foods. And, there's always a possibility the Amazon-Whole Foods deal does not get approved. Especially if there is any suggestion that the Russians were involved.

***********************
Amazon Is Eclipsing Walmart's BEST Efforts To Dominate E-Commerce

Does this really surprise anyone? Next time you visit Walmart, point out to your spouse the customers you see walking up and down the aisles that are likely to order on-line from Walmart ... okay, stop laughing.

Disclaimer: I shop at Walmart frequently, so if you see me there, ... nope, I don't order on-line from Walmart -- but I do from Amazon....

From Yahoo!Finance:
  • "Walmart got crushed Friday following news that Amazon is aggressively moving nto the grocery store business"
  • Walmart is aggressively getting into e-commerce by buying stand-alone on-line retail companies
  • Walmart's online sales: $14 billion (2016)
  • Amazon's online sales: $95 billion (2016)
  • Walmart has 50 million SKUs (stock keeping units); up from 10 million just one year ago
  • Amazon: hundreds (plural) of SKUs and billions of product pages
  • "safe to assume Amazon is the "everything store" at this stage" -- Barclays
  • but Amazon growth has plateaued -- see graph at the link 
  • Walmart's on-line growth has surged (after introducing free shipping for orders over $45)
  • but on-line sales contribute only 3% of Walmart's total sales
In-store pick-up:
  • Walmart has advantage
  • in-store pick-up makes sense in high-crime/high-theft neighborhoods
  • in-store pick-up makes sense in gated communities where USPS / UPS may not deliver after hours
  • could Amazon use Whole Foods as in-store pick-up points? 
  • but overall, is in-store pick-up all that important? If I go to Walmart to get something and they don't have it, I'm likely to go home and order it from Amazon
*************************
How To Mitigate Shipping Expenses

I assume this has been something Amazon has offered for quite some time, but I saw it for the first time today.

I ordered a single item. It was a rare item, not easily found, except perhaps through Amazon. They probably have few of these items in stock and may be in a fulfillment center far from where I live. With Amazon Prime, they can ship this single item to me but it will be quite expensive (for a single, far-away item). So, Amazon tells me that if I forego the two-day Prime delivery, and have it sent the old-fashioned way, they will credit my account $5 when the item ships.

The item set me back less then $22 so a $5 discount was not trivial, and instead of getting the item on June 20th, I will get it June 25th or June 27th. I didn't care if I didn't get it until August. 
*****************************
"I've Never Seen An Amazon Employee --"

--  Mark Cuban, June 2, 2017. 

If the Amazon-Whole Foods deal goes through, Mark Cuban will be seeing a lot more Amazon employees. 
*****************************
Call Me Naive, But ...

... in the past few months, have we heard much from or about the following global hot spots?
  • NOKO-SOKO-China-Japan
  • Mexico
  • the Mideast
  • Ukraine
On top of all that, the southern border of the US seems to be very, very quiet.

************************
And Finally

About a year or so ago, our younger daughter wanted Lego's new Disney Castle. It was constantly "temporarily sold out," but eventually we were able to buy not one, but two sets. Yes, call us crazy. I don't remember the exact price Lego sold them for -- I believe $349 -- but during those periods when they were "temporarily sold out" they were "going for" $1,000 over on eBay.

Now, the same thing with a new Lego offering: the NASA Apollo Saturn V. And, yes, that is on our list to watch.