Петрол и газ

Money написа:Ама въпросът е как щях да разбра, че трябва да продам на $4.9. Като не съм трейдър можеше да стане така, че да вляза малко късно и да изляза късно и да има съвсем малък gain ама с много риск.

Предпочитам някакви по-дългосрочни трендове да отиграя и да имам повече conviction в тях самият аз.

trajbva da definirash cel i exit. kato vsjaka sdelka. i da doba risk-reward ratio. kakto i da e.

Ама въпросът е как щях да разбра, че трябва да продам на $4.9. Като не съм трейдър можеше да стане така, че да вляза малко късно и да изляза късно и да има съвсем малък gain ама с много риск.

Предпочитам някакви по-дългосрочни трендове да отиграя и да имам повече conviction в тях самият аз.

Brent is your friend = target 95

Малко оптимизъм за петролните / енергийните компании 

Money написа:Тия врътки са въпрос не само на логика, ами си искат много ловък тайминг. Не е за мене, а и не е и за повечето хора.

ne e taka, dolu imash cjal text obajasnavast zasto. prosto i logi4no...

Тия врътки са въпрос не само на логика, ами си искат много ловък тайминг. Не е за мене, а и не е и за повечето хора.

Money написа:

Ние тука повечето не сме трейдъри и не можем да си хортуваме на нивото, на което си ти :-)

i az ne sam, prosto se opitwam da misla racionalno

volaswap написа:
Prosto se pitam zasto ne me razbirate      

Ние тука повечето не сме трейдъри и не можем да си хортуваме на нивото, на което си ти :-)

https://www.zerohedge.com/commodities/no-one-wants-be-short-us-natgas-futures-erupt-cold-sweeps-east-coast

"No One Wants To Be Short" - US NatGas Futures Erupt As Cold Sweeps East Coast

daega ot dnes oste 2.05

https://sg-zertifikate.de/product-details/SD2J4B

Prosto se pitam zasto ne me razbirate

Money написа:Виж обаче какво става тука. Американците се очаква да дигнат производството на петрол до ново рекордно ниво. 




Това ще оказва натиск върху цената на петрола. 

ok, vigash 4e ot wsi4ki deals deto puskam imam ratio 80/20% uspeh. znachi imam 20% da si prav

Виж обаче какво става тука. Американците се очаква да дигнат производството на петрол до ново рекордно ниво. 

FT написа:US oil production is on course to break pre-pandemic records next year, a government agency has forecast, complicating the Biden administration’s ambitions to shift the country away from fossil fuels.


Output is likely to rise to a fresh annual high of 12.4m barrels a day in 2023, the Energy Information Administration said on Tuesday, eclipsing the previous record volume of 12.3m b/d set in 2019. US natural gas production will also set new records over the next two years, the independent statistics agency said.

Това ще оказва натиск върху цената на петрола. 

FT написа:The forecast comes as higher energy prices spark new investment in developing oil and gasfields. The EIA expected Brent crude oil prices to average $75 a barrel this year and $68 a barrel next year — lower than spot prices, which suggests production could climb even in a weaker commodity market.

Money написа:С този огромен неупотребен капацитет за производство на петрол на ОПЕК ми е трудно да повярвам, че ни чака цена на петрола от $100 и нагоре през 2022. 

matter of time. I am very bullish.

volaswap написа:Seeing an interesting pattern developing ahead leading up to Christmas and into early January '22, as higher pressure looks to finally re-establish towards Alaska and the North Atlantic, pushing cold from the Arctic down into the US (after a record warm start to the month). If the MJO (Madden-Julian Oscillation) can continue to progress through phase 7 into 8 (and possibly into 1) mid to late December, this can also increase the potential for a Polar Vortex displacement event, sending more consistent cold air deeper into the US…a big risk to watch for the energy markets ahead," Kirk Hinz, the chief meteorologist at BAMWX, noted.

BAMWX outlines now could be the time to find a long entry into natgas futures, or as they put it, "long UNG," the United States Natural Gas Fund, LP. ETF. Their reasoning behind the play is quite simple:

Long UNG Equity, Why? Polar Vortex Jan 2022 Northeast - Front-month NG1 40% drawdown in 6 weeks - Things can change on a dime but the setup is very good in our view - When you get a nice - healthy- capitulation puke ahead of this kind of possible shift typically leads to drama reversal - seasonal pattern - GFS (global forecasting system) pointing to an increased probability of Polar Vortex disruptions - decent chance forecasts suddenly get significantly colder to end Dec and open up 2022. Much of the Street got caught very long in Sept, anticipating a brutally cold winter, along with supply risk - then came above ave temps and then the "flush" exit, a now a polar vortex? -BAMWX

Long  Natural Gas Future Jan 2022 at 3.8 / 1.50
https://sg-zertifikate.de/product-details/SD2J4B

sold 1.90.

С този огромен неупотребен капацитет за производство на петрол на ОПЕК ми е трудно да повярвам, че ни чака цена на петрола от $100 и нагоре през 2022. 

volaswap написа:

go guys. do small for the sport. support me on my way up

will start to charge you guys...

volaswap написа:I'm stuck at home with covid so the brain is rather fuzzy. 

Ники, това не го бях видял. Бързо оздравяване ти пожелавам! 

Аз хванах най-обикновен грип в началото на седмицата и не беше никак fun. Чак вчера ми просветна малко.

I'm stuck at home with covid so the brain is rather fuzzy. But carbon has tanked. So it needs a comment. I was about to write but I saw a tweet by Mark Lewis (thanks) which really summed up most of my thoughts. So, being of fuzzy disposition, I thought I would simply copy it into here and add a couple of my own comments in square brackets [].

For background, the carbon price collapse, from €84 to €75 (now recovering as I type), was driven by a Polish-inspired spat over carbon prices at the EU. Yesterday, the EU failed (which I think is a positive) to agree on a proposal to limit/stop/whatever the EU ETS scheme, with the issue to be discussed at the next quarterly meeting. A LOT of this is because energy prices are high, which is MOSTLY because gas prices are high, which IRONICALLY is in large part because Poland, amongst others, objecting to additional Russian gas supply (Nordstream 2). But politicians are odd folk and they like to opine on things they don't always understand, so, in this case, they blame the carbon price.

I think fundamentals will prevail: the EU cannot and will not be derailed from reducing emissions to meet its 2030 -55% target.

Mr.Lewis' tweet ->

Let's talk fundamentals. The EU has a legally binding 2050 net-zero target & correspondingly ambitious legally binding CO2-reduction target for 2030 (-55% v 1990). The EU-ETS is single-most important tool to achieve these goals so you play around with it at your peril.

Speculative activity is a v small part of overall activity in the EU-ETS in any case. As below chart shows, spec positioning has ranged btwn 30Mt-60Mt over the course of 2021, against a total net length of all participants ranging btwn 1,000Mt-1,200Mt (4% on average). [I make it 7%, but, either way, still small in the grand context].

If EUAs were pricing the coal-gas fuel switch in the prompt right now, the Dec-21 contract would be trading >€400/t [530 on my numbers]. But at €80/t EUAs are pricing in the fuel-switch in Q2 2024 [€98 on my numbers]. The EU-ETS is therefore effectively a shock absorber for the entire EU energy complex atm.

Guess what? Precisely because the current EUA price is so far below the fuel-switch, EU-ETS emissions are going UP not down. Coal and lignite are running ahead of gas everywhere because that is what the clean-dark and clean-spark spreads are telling generators to do.

Let that sink in: the EU has a legally binding target to reduce emissions by 55% [by 2030] v 1990 but at the moment emissions are going UP, not down. What does that tell us? It tells us that on fundamentals, the EUA price needs to be HIGHER than it is today, not lower.

Self-evidently, therefore, today's EUA price is not artificially high as a result of 'detrimental speculation'. In fact, the exact opposite fits the facts better: prices are artificially low because industrials are not incentivized to hedge properly.

We need to protect EU industry, but we also need to incentivize EU industry to hedge their carbon risk properly as otherwise we are not going to achieve the decarbonization targets that are binding under EU Law. How? Bring in the CBAM ASAP and get rid of free allowances.

Remember, EU industry still gets the majority of its EUAs for free [c80%], and while this free allocation will phase down going forward with tighter benchmarks and a declining cap, industry has actually made huge windfall profits from free allocations since 2008.

The current stress in EU energy markets is all about gas. The EU Commission stated 2 months ago that only 20% of the rise in power prices was down to EUAs, and 80% down to the rise in gas prices. Yet we don't hear talk of 'detrimental speculation' in gas markets.

The same countries complaining loudest about speculators causing high carbon prices are the same countries objecting most strongly to allowing Norsdstream-2 to go ahead (especially Poland and Latvia).

Yet if EU blocked NS2, the impact of the resulting increase in gas prices on EU power prices would be v much greater than the current impact of carbon on EU power prices. To argue for curbs on both speculative activity in the EU-ETS and on Russian gas supply is utterly incoherent.

CONCLUSION: Either the EU is serious about its legally binding climate targets or it is not. If it is, then it should let the EU-ETS operate the same way all other commodities markets operate instead of debating indefinable definitions of 'beneficial' or 'detrimental' speculation

ADDENDUM: There is a mechanism (Article 29a) designed to deal with high carbon prices. This is therefore the appropriate policy response should the Commission judge that the criteria for triggering it have been met. Markets need clear rules not arbitrary political interference. [Article 29a says that if the average price over the last 6m is 3x the average over preceeding 24m, 100m additional supply will be injected if the committee decrees the price did not go up because of fundamental reasons].

volaswap написа:Seeing an interesting pattern developing ahead leading up to Christmas and into early January '22, as higher pressure looks to finally re-establish towards Alaska and the North Atlantic, pushing cold from the Arctic down into the US (after a record warm start to the month). If the MJO (Madden-Julian Oscillation) can continue to progress through phase 7 into 8 (and possibly into 1) mid to late December, this can also increase the potential for a Polar Vortex displacement event, sending more consistent cold air deeper into the US…a big risk to watch for the energy markets ahead," Kirk Hinz, the chief meteorologist at BAMWX, noted.

BAMWX outlines now could be the time to find a long entry into natgas futures, or as they put it, "long UNG," the United States Natural Gas Fund, LP. ETF. Their reasoning behind the play is quite simple:

Long UNG Equity, Why? Polar Vortex Jan 2022 Northeast - Front-month NG1 40% drawdown in 6 weeks - Things can change on a dime but the setup is very good in our view - When you get a nice - healthy- capitulation puke ahead of this kind of possible shift typically leads to drama reversal - seasonal pattern - GFS (global forecasting system) pointing to an increased probability of Polar Vortex disruptions - decent chance forecasts suddenly get significantly colder to end Dec and open up 2022. Much of the Street got caught very long in Sept, anticipating a brutally cold winter, along with supply risk - then came above ave temps and then the "flush" exit, a now a polar vortex? -BAMWX

Long  Natural Gas Future Jan 2022 at 3.8 / 1.50
https://sg-zertifikate.de/product-details/SD2J4B

go guys. do small for the sport. support me on my way up

Seeing an interesting pattern developing ahead leading up to Christmas and into early January '22, as higher pressure looks to finally re-establish towards Alaska and the North Atlantic, pushing cold from the Arctic down into the US (after a record warm start to the month). If the MJO (Madden-Julian Oscillation) can continue to progress through phase 7 into 8 (and possibly into 1) mid to late December, this can also increase the potential for a Polar Vortex displacement event, sending more consistent cold air deeper into the US…a big risk to watch for the energy markets ahead," Kirk Hinz, the chief meteorologist at BAMWX, noted.

BAMWX outlines now could be the time to find a long entry into natgas futures, or as they put it, "long UNG," the United States Natural Gas Fund, LP. ETF. Their reasoning behind the play is quite simple:

Long UNG Equity, Why? Polar Vortex Jan 2022 Northeast - Front-month NG1 40% drawdown in 6 weeks - Things can change on a dime but the setup is very good in our view - When you get a nice - healthy- capitulation puke ahead of this kind of possible shift typically leads to drama reversal - seasonal pattern - GFS (global forecasting system) pointing to an increased probability of Polar Vortex disruptions - decent chance forecasts suddenly get significantly colder to end Dec and open up 2022. Much of the Street got caught very long in Sept, anticipating a brutally cold winter, along with supply risk - then came above ave temps and then the "flush" exit, a now a polar vortex? -BAMWX

Long Natural Gas Future Jan 2022 at 3.8 / 1.50
https://sg-zertifikate.de/product-details/SD2J4B

TTF at 123 new time high + Russia = margin calls (hedges) + defaults

Много интересно... как така нямало газ... Пък още утре можели да се намерят още 17.5млрд. куб. метра газ ако ЕС одобри Северен поток 2.

FT написа:Russia can increase gas supplies to Europe as soon as Germany approves the new Nord Stream 2 pipeline, President Vladimir Putin said, underlining Moscow’s conditions for help to resolve the continent’s energy crisis.

Putin said Gazprom, the Kremlin’s gas monopoly, could increase flows by an extra 17.5bn cubic metres via the new pipeline “the day after tomorrow” if regulators approved it “tomorrow”.