Docstoc

Deutsche Bank - Asia Economics Special

Document Sample
Deutsche Bank - Asia Economics Special Powered By Docstoc
					                            Global


                           22 March 2013
Macro




                           Asia Economics Special                                                                  Economics


                           Shale shock
                                                                                                                   Research Team
                                                                                                                   Taimur Baig, Ph.D
 Global Markets Research




                                                                                                                   Chief Economist
                                                                                                                   (+65) 64238681
                                                                                                                   taimur.baig@db.com

                                                                                                                   Soozhana Choi
                                                                                                                   Strategist

                           Shale’s impact on the US and implication for Asia                                       (+65) 6423 5261
                                                                                                                   soozhana.choi@db.com

                           From an obscure technology a decade ago to presently seen as a profound
                           change agent in natural gas/oil production, shale technology has had a dramatic
                           impact on the commodity landscape. The production figures, actual and projected,
                           are large enough to warrant a major re-examination of global energy supply
                           conditions, especially for natural gas, oil, and coal, and the geopolitical and
                           economic implications are far-reaching.

                           In this piece, we present some salient facts on shale and its impact. It is important
                           to recognize that given the relatively recent nature of the technology’s application,
                           many projections are subject to large degrees of uncertainty. Still, the pace of
                           technological improvement and the consistency with which production figures
                           have been beating even optimistic projections are startling, and suggest shale’s
                           transformative impact would persist for decades.

                           While shale has fundamentally transformed the US energy landscape, more
                           profound changes are in store as the US begins exporting natural gas to the rest
                           of the world and China begins to harvest its own shale natural gas/oil. Issues
                           related to energy security, global geo-politics, and patterns of trade could be
                           fundamentally altered in the coming years and decades as shale technology
                           matures, environmental concerns are contained, and a hard ceiling is imposed
                           on energy costs.

                           Shale natural gas reserves: wait till China gets into the act
                                                                                                           Tcf
                                       China                                                               1275
                                          US                                                         862
                                  Argentina                                                    774
                                     Mexico                                              681
                              South Africa                                         485
                                   Australia                                 396
                                     Canada                                  388
                                       Libya                           290
                                     Algeria                     231
                                       Brazil                    226




                           Source: : US DOE/EIA, Deutsche Bank
 Economics




                           Deutsche Bank AG/Hong Kong
                           DISCLOSURES AND ANALYST CERTIFICATIONS ARE LOCATED IN APPENDIX 1. MICA(P) 072/04/2012.
22 March 2013   Asia Economics Special




                               Shale shock
                               Shale gas/oil’s impact on the US and implication for Asia
                               From an obscure technology a decade ago to presently seen as a profound change agent in
                               gas/oil production, shale technology has had a dramatic impact on the commodity landscape.
                               The production figures, actual and projected, are large enough to warrant a major re-
                               examination of global energy supply conditions, and the geopolitical and economic
                               implications are far-reaching.

                               In this piece, we present some salient facts on shale and its impact. Given the paucity of data
                               from elsewhere, our analysis focuses on the shale developments in the US, with some
                               figures on China. It is important to recognize that given the relative recent nature of the
                               technology’s application, many projections are subject to large degrees of uncertainty. Still,
                               the pace of technological improvement and the consistency with which production figures
                               have been beating even optimistic projections are startling, and suggest that shale’s
                               transformative impact would likely persist for decades.

                               While shale has fundamentally transformed the US energy landscape, more profound
                               changes are in store as the US begins exporting natural gas to the rest of the world and
                               China begins to harvest its own shale natural gas/oil. Issues related to energy security, global
                               geo-politics, and patterns of trade could be fundamentally altered in the coming years and
                               decades as shale technology matures, environmental concerns are contained, and a hard
                               ceiling is imposed on energy costs.

                               What is shale?

                               Shale refers to fine-grained sedimentary rock formations that can contain high quantities of
                               petroleum and natural gas. Exploiting shale resources requires a combination of horizontal
                               drilling and hydraulic fracking. Fracking is a technique that involves pumping water,
                               chemicals, and sand to open up cracks in the shale rock, allowing the hydrocarbons trapped
                               inside to flow. Initially, natural gas has been the focus of shale development, but oil can be
                               extracted using the same method.

                               Why now?

                               Knowledge of the existence of shale oil and natural gas is not new, but extraction has been
                               costly, both in absolute and relative terms, until recently. Advances in horizontal drilling and
                               hydraulic fracking, as well as steep gains in US natural gas prices in the past decade made
                               shale extraction feasible.

                               How has it changed the US energy supply/demand dynamic?

                               Over the past 5 years, shale’s rise as source of energy production in the US has been
                               dramatic. The US Department of Energy (USDoE) projects that shale will continue to
                               dominate US natural gas supply over the long-term, contributing over 50% of total US
                               production by 2040, up from less than 10% in 2007 (Figure 1).

                               Though the shale phenomenon began with natural gas, shale oil production growth in the US
                               began to take centre stage from last year with North Dakota in the lead, thanks to the prolific
                               Bakken shale. USDoE estimates that US total oil production in 2012 rose by 800,000bbl/day,
                               or 14%yoy, to the highest level since 1997, due to a steep ramp up in shale oil supply. North
                               Dakota’s oil production last year averaged 663,000bbl/day (+60%yoy). The state alone


Page 2                                                                                            Deutsche Bank AG/Hong Kong
22 March 2013   Asia Economics Special


                               contributed to one-third of total US oil supply growth. Thanks to shale, North Dakota’s oil
                               output now exceeds Malaysia’s. If production growth rates remain robust, North Dakota’s
                               output would soon exceed that of Indonesia.

                               Figure 1: US natural natural gas production by type – shale dominates
                                 40.0          Trillion cubic feet

                                 30.0


                                 20.0


                                 10.0


                                   0.0
                                         '10       '12      '14F '16F '18F '20F '22F '24F '26F '28F '30F '32F '34F '36F '38F '40F
                                               Lower 48 Onshore-Shale                                                                Lower 48 Onshore-Tight
                                               Lower 48 Onshore - Associated                                                         Lower 48 Onshore-Coalbed Methane
                                               Lower 48 Onshore-Other                                                                Lower 48 Offshore
                               Lower 48 refer to continental US. Associated refers to natural natural gas commonly found associated with oil/petroleum deposits. Coalbed methane refers to a form of
                               natural natural gas extracted from coal beds. Tight and shale are combined as both are unconventional sources of oil that typically involve horizontal drilling and fracking
                               in the extraction process. The key difference is that tight resources are in reservoirs, typically sandstone. Source: US DOE/EIA, Deutsche Bank



                               USDoE projects shale oil will be a leading contributor to domestic US oil supply over the long
                               term, contributing nearly 40% of total US oil supply at its peak in 2026, up from just 15% in
                               2010 (Figure 2).

                               Figure 2: US oil production by type – shale dominates
                                   8.0         Mln Bbl/day

                                   6.0


                                   4.0


                                   2.0


                                   0.0
                                         '10       '12      '14F '16F '18F '20F '22F '24F '26F '28F '30F '32F '34F '36F '38F '40F
                                                 Lower 48 Onshore-EOR                                                               Lower 48 Onshore-Other
                                                 Lower 48 Offshore                                                                  Alaska
                                                 Lower 48 Onshore-Tight/Shale Oil
                               Lower 48 refer to continental US. Tight and shale are combined as both are unconventional sources of oil that typically involve horizontal drilling and fracking in the
                               extraction process. The key difference is that tight resources are in reservoirs, typically sandstone. EOR refers to Enhanced Oil Recovery, which refers to techniques for
                               boosting the amount of crude oil produced from an oil field, which can include natural gas injection or miscible flooding with the most common miscible used being
                               carbon dioxide. Source: US DOE/EIA, Deutsche Bank



                               As a consequence of rapid gains in shale oil and natural gas production, US dependence on
                               imported energy sources is firmly on a downtrend. Looking ahead, by 2040, the US is
                               projected to import only 9% of its total energy needs, down from 25% in 2009 (Figure 3).




Deutsche Bank AG/Hong Kong                                                                                                                                                                      Page 3
22 March 2013   Asia Economics Special


                               Figure 3: US dependence on imported energy in decline
                                             Net US energy imports/demand
                                    24%
                                    22%
                                    20%
                                    18%
                                    16%
                                    14%
                                    12%
                                    10%
                                     8%
                                              '09      '11 '13F '15F '17F '19F '21F '23F '25F '27F '29F '31F '33F '35F '37F '39F

                               Total energy includes nuclear, oil, natural gas, coal, renewables, etc. as measured on a BTU basis. EIA’s reference case. Source: US DOE/EIA, Deutsche Bank


                               Pitfalls?

                               Environmental concerns associated with shale extraction centre on: (i) high volumes of water
                               required for fracturing (US EPA estimates 2.3-3.8mn gallons/well though some formations are
                               estimated to require up to 13mn gallons/well); (ii) the potential for fracturing fluid, which
                               contains hazardous chemicals, to contaminate surrounding areas; (iii) issues related to
                               disposal of contaminated wastewater; (iv) and the potential for seismic activity, or small
                               tremors, related to fracking operations.

                               Impact on the natural gas market

                               The shale revolution is causing dramatic structural changes to the US energy market. The US
                               natural gas market is in the vanguard given that’s where the shale phenomenon began. The
                               rapid growth in US natural gas supply, due to shale, has led to a sizable surplus, with prices
                               falling sharply.1 After peaking at over USD15/mmbtu in late 2005, natural gas prices fell to
                               USD1.90/mmbtu in April 2012, a drop of nearly 90% (Figure 4).

                               Figure 4: US natural natural gas prices have fallen sharply due to shale natural gas

                                    15        USD/mmbtu                                                                                                  Oil: Natural Gas Ratio              60

                                    13                                                                                                                                                       50
                                    11                                                                                                                                                       40
                                      9
                                                                                                                                                                                             30
                                      7
                                                                                                                                                                                             20
                                      5
                                      3                                                                                                                                                      10

                                      1                                                                                                                                                      0
                                       1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1997 1998 1999 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 2012
                                                    Oil/Gas Ratio (RHS)                        Nymex Natural Gas (LHS)                              Nymex CAPP Coal (LHS)

                               Source: Bloomberg Finance LP, Deutsche Bank



                               Ripple effect: from natural gas to coal

                               Although US natural gas prices since late 2011 have been trading below the average shale
                               natural gas breakeven cost of about USD4/mmbtu, a production pull back failed to
                               materialize. Many major producers were hedged, and could withstand lower pricing. Also,



                               1
                                   Sluggish US economic growth also contributed to a weak natural gas demand backdrop.


Page 4                                                                                                                                              Deutsche Bank AG/Hong Kong
22 March 2013   Asia Economics Special


                               leasing clauses that required operators to drill or lose access caused production to continue
                               unabated. Consequently, the natural gas surplus continues to grow. In fact, with natural gas
                               pricing falling below coal, utilities with the capability and capacity have been switching to
                               burning more natural gas at the expense of coal. In 1990, coal plants supplied 50% of U.S.
                               electricity generation on average, but by 2012 that share had fallen to 32%, with natural gas
                               becoming a key supply source. Exports became the only outlet available in the face of record
                               coal displacement, leading US coal exports to surge (Figure 5). This trend is expected to firm
                               further in the coming years.

                               Figure 5: US coal exports on the rise due to the impact of shale natural gas
                                 175           Mln short tonnes                                                     Exports: Production
                                 155                                                                                                         13.5%

                                 135                                                                                                         11.5%
                                 115
                                                                                                                                             9.5%
                                   95
                                                                                                                                             7.5%
                                   75
                                   55                                                                                                        5.5%

                                   35                                                                                                        3.5%
                                         '90         '95           '00      '05     '10       '15F   '20F    '25F     '30F    '35F    '40F
                                                                         Coal Exports (LHS)          Exports/Production (RHS)
                               Source: US DOE/EIA, Deutsche Bank



                               While global coal markets have been contending with rising exports from the US, the global
                               natural gas market also will be faced with the US entering the liquefied natural gas (LNG)
                               club. The US natural gas surplus has prompted industry to convert LNG import terminals into
                               export terminals; the US is poised to become an LNG exporter from 2016. LNG exports and
                               declining pipeline imports (as US demand is increasingly met by domestic supply rather than
                               piped/seaborne imports) means the US will become a net natural gas exporter from 2020
                               (Figure 6). US LNG exports aren’t expected to be sizable relative to the overall global LNG
                               market and opposition to US energy exports remains a point of contention in Washington.
                               That said, the incentive for Asia, the world’s largest LNG consuming region, to import from
                               the US, is undeniable from a price perspective.

                               Figure 6: US will become a net natural gas exporter from the start of the next decade
                                     3         Trillion cubic feet

                                     2                               Net imports

                                     1

                                     0

                                    -1

                                    -2

                                    -3                                                                      Net exports

                                    -4
                                         '10      '12      '14F '16F '18F '20F '22F '24F '26F '28F '30F '32F '34F '36F '38F '40F
                               Source: US DOE/EIA, Deutsche Bank




Deutsche Bank AG/Hong Kong                                                                                                                    Page 5
22 March 2013   Asia Economics Special


                               LNG price gap

                               So far, only US consumers have benefited from low natural gas prices due to the regionalized
                               nature of the global natural gas market. Natural gas prices in Europe and Asia are linked to
                               crude oil prices, while US prices follow their own domestic natural gas dynamics. Presently,
                               the US LNG export price to Japan is about 40% cheaper than what Japan is paying (Figure 7).

                               Not only is shale playing a critical role in driving US energy exports, it has also been
                               instrumental in revitalizing key industries in the US. Notably, cheap natural gas and
                               consequently feedstock pricing has provided significant benefit to the US petrochemical
                               industry, which had previously been in decline. We may also see a rebirth of sorts for the US
                               steel industry as cheap natural gas makes it an attractive feedstock in the steel-making
                               process. Both foreign and domestic companies are looking at building steel plants in the US
                               based on this natural gas-based process. As a result, shale could be a game changing
                               catalyst for the US steel sector.

                               Figure 7: The incentive for Asia to buy US LNG
                                18
                                            USD/mmbtu
                                17
                                16                                            Avg Japanese LNG import price
                                15
                                14
                                                                                                      Japan contract LNG price
                                13
                                12
                                11
                                10
                                 9
                                                                                                  US LNG export price to Japan
                                 8
                                     2010       2011         2012          2013    2014    2015     2016      2017   2018   2019   2020
                               Source: Bloomberg Finance LP. PAJ, Deutsche Bank



                               Next up, shale oil

                               Though the shale phenomenon began with natural gas, since last year, its impact on the oil
                               market has grabbed the spotlight as shale oil growth far exceeded expectations. US total oil
                               supply growth last year of about 800,000 bbl/day was the largest ever recorded as far back
                               as USDoE data goes to 1900, thanks to shale oil, and a similar jump is expected in 2013
                               (Figure 8). The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates US oil supply growth will
                               contribute about 70% to non-OPEC supply growth over the next three years.

                               Figure 8: US crude oil production




                               Source: US Energy Dept/EIA, Deutsche Bank




Page 6                                                                                                                Deutsche Bank AG/Hong Kong
22 March 2013   Asia Economics Special


                               Clearly, the future is one of gradual decline in US oil import dependence (Figure 9). Increasing
                               use of plentiful domestically produced oil combined with rising US refined product exports
                               are seen as key to declining oil import dependence. US crude oil imports fell recently to a 15
                               year low while net refined product exports are at record levels. Since 2011, the US has been
                               a net refined products exporter (Figure 10).

                               Figure 9: US oil import dependence in decline




                               Net crude oil and refined products imports/ total demand. Source: US DOE/EIA, Deutsche Bank



                               Figure 10: US is already a net refined products exporter




                               Source: US DOE/EIA, Deutsche Bank



                               Impact on world oil price

                               There remains an ongoing debate as to how oil prices will respond to rising US supply.
                               According to one line of argument, US oil prices, referencing US benchmark West Texas
                               Intermediate (WTI), will follow a similar trajectory as its natural gas counterpart. Others
                               project that given the global nature of the oil market, prices will remain vulnerable to supply
                               issues in the Middle East/North Africa – home to one third of the world’s oil supply.

                               In our view, there is bearish case for oil, but not a major one even if oil production soars. If
                               WTI falls to around USD50-60/bbl, that level would be below the breakeven price of shale (as
                               well as US deepwater), implying a supply response that would tighten up the oil balance and
                               prove supportive for pricing. Also, a swifter response is likely from the shale oil sector to a
                               period of low oil prices (unlike the response to low natural gas prices).

                               Our baseline forecast for long-term pricing and risks around the oil demand and supply
                               balance is that oil prices going forward will be flat to lower. Brent would average USD110/bbl
                               and WTI USD100-105/bbl by the middle of this decade (Figure 11). We believe that gains in
                               US oil supply growth will help mitigate but will not fully eliminate the impact of geopolitical
                               events; what happened last year is an example of this.

Deutsche Bank AG/Hong Kong                                                                                                   Page 7
22 March 2013   Asia Economics Special


                               Figure 11: Oil prices are expected to be flat to lower going forward
                                 130
                                             USD/bbl
                                 110

                                   90

                                   70

                                   50

                                   30

                                   10


                                                       WTI                        Brent                       DB WTI Forecast                                DB Brent Forecast
                               Quarterly average except for 2015-2016, which is annual average. Source: Bloomberg Finance LP, Deutsche Bank




                               Shale & geopolitical risk
                               If the US surplus ultimately leads to the Brent benchmark falling precipitously with WTI to a
                               level below the fiscal and budgetary level for key oil producers in the Middle East, the
                               economic strain could ultimately lead to potentially widespread social unrest in that region.
                               Large scale spending on social programs in the Middle East has increased the breakeven oil
                               price for many countries in recent years. According to our EM research team, the average
                               GCC breakeven price last year is estimated to be around USD80/bbl (Brent basis), a 60%
                               increase since 2008. This rising trend is likely to remain in place. And while USD80/bbl is the
                               fiscal/budgetary breakeven, indications are that OPEC members are more comfortable with
                               prices at around USD100-110/bbl.

                               2012 was a year punctuated by geopolitical risk with the persistent threat of as well as
                               realized oil supply disruptions. Oil prices (Brent) last year averaged about USD112/bbl,
                               broadly unchanged from the prior year’s average. In our view, given the spate of global oil
                               supply disruptions that the market had to contend with last year, oil prices would have been
                               far higher if not for rapid gains in US oil supply. One way to measure this is to examine last
                               year’s oil balance via OPEC spare capacity levels. OPEC holds the world’s spare oil
                               production cushion that can be called on to meet upside demand surprises as well as to fill
                               supply shortfalls in the event of unexpected production/export losses. Ultimately, the bulk of
                               the group’s spare capacity is in the hands of Saudi Arabia. Consequently, declining
                               OPEC/Saudi spare capacity levels are associated with rising oil prices (Figure 12).

                               Figure 12: Low OPEC spare capacity is historically linked to rising oil prices
                                                                                                                                                                             7
                                 135        USD/bbl                                                                                                            Mln Bbl/day
                                                                                                                                                                             6
                                 115
                                                                                                                                                                             5
                                   95
                                                                                                                                                                             4
                                   75
                                                                                                                                                                             3
                                   55                                                                                                                                        2
                                   35                                                                                                                                        1
                                   15                                                                     0
                                     2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

                                                 OPEC Spare Capacity (RHS)                                    Brent (LHS)                         Saudi Spare Capacity (RHS)

                               Spare capacity is calculated as sustainable production capacity minus production. Source: IEA, Bloomberg Finance LP, Deutsche Bank




Page 8                                                                                                                                            Deutsche Bank AG/Hong Kong
22 March 2013                Asia Economics Special


                                                      OPEC raised production last year to offset a series of global supply disruptions notably from
                                                      Iran (due to US/EU sanctions), Sudan (due to a territorial and oil revenue sharing dispute) and
                                                      the North Sea (due to operational issues). Disruptions in Syria, Yemen and Nigeria also
                                                      contributed to last year’s supply outages. Though not the extreme lows of the middle of the
                                                      last decade, spare capacity was certainly far tighter than it had been in the past four years.

                                                      However, if US oil supply growth had been on par with 2011 growth (+4%) or the five-year
                                                      average (+2%), which implies no shale oil development, then the world would have called on
                                                      an additional 700,000 bbl/day-1 mn bbl/day of OPEC oil. This implies OPEC and Saudi spare
                                                      capacity levels would have dropped to the lowest levels since 2006 (Figure 13). This
                                                      demonstrates the critical role played by shale oil last year.

                                                      Figure 13: Saudi spare capacity scenarios – what if US supply growth didn’t occur
                                                          4.0
                                                                      Mln Bbl/day                                                                                                   #1 - Assuming 2011
                                                          3.5                                                                                                                              US oil supply
                                                          3.0                                                                                                                                    growth
                                                                                                                                                                                     #2 - Assuming avg
                                                          2.5
                                                                                                                                                                                           US oil supply
                                                          2.0                                                                                                                                    growth
                                                          1.5
                                                          1.0
                                                          0.5
                                                          0.0
                                                                  2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2012 2012
                                                                                                                                   Scen Scen
                                                                                                                                    #1   #2
                                                      Scenario #1 assumes that the 2012 US oil supply growth rate was the same as in 2011. Scenario #2 assumes that the 2012 US oil supply growth rate was that of the
                                                      five-year average. Source: IEA, Deutsche Bank




                                                      China’s (potential) shale revolution
                                                      China’s energy needs are considerable. Its crude oil imports averaged 5.5mn bbl/day in 2012,
                                                      up nearly 70% since 2007. Indeed, China started this year by importing 6mn bbl/day, which
                                                      was about 2mn bbl/day less than what the US imported in January. The US-China crude oil
                                                      import gap has narrowed dramatically in recent years (Figure 14).

Figure 14: US vs. China crude oil import trends                                                               Figure 15: China’s oil import dependence is climbing

                                                                                                              70%         Crude oil import: total demand
           Mln Bbl/day
                                                                                US
  10.5
                                                                                                              60%
    8.5
                                                                                                              50%
    6.5

                                                       China                                                  40%
    4.5
                                                                                                                                                                                           Annual
    2.5                                                                                                       30%                                                                          Average


    0.5                                                                                                       20%
       2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013                                               2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Source: US Energy Dept/EIA, C1, Reuters, Bloomberg Finance LP, Deutsche Bank                                  Source: C1, Reuters, Bloomberg Finance LP, Deutsche Bank




                                                      As Beijing observes its oil import dependence rising every year, energy security has taken
                                                      greater priority for policymakers. In 2001, crude oil imports represented just under 30% of
                                                      total oil demand. That’s grown to about 60% in 2012 (Figure 15). From a demand
                                                      perspective, China has pursued measures, including energy conservation/efficiency, aimed at

Deutsche Bank AG/Hong Kong                                                                                                                                                                                    Page 9
22 March 2013   Asia Economics Special


                               curbing consumption growth rates. From a supply perspective, China is pursuing a policy of
                               diversifying its primary energy mix and its crude oil import sources.

                               China is also looking at increasing its own domestic hydrocarbon resources, notably shale
                               given the extent of its potential resources. Although the US is the world’s largest producer of
                               shale resources, it is China that is estimated to hold the largest technically recoverable
                               reserves, according to USDoE estimates. China’s technically recoverable reserves of shale
                               natural gas could be 50% greater than that of the US (Figure 16). China has so far launched
                               two auctions of shale natural gas blocks that attracted much commercial interest.

                               That said, given technical challenges unique to China’s shale geology and water constraints,
                               most expect that China will fail to meet its target of 6.5bn cubic meters of shale/year by
                               2015. Most experts predict that China’s shale boom is more likely to materialize not this
                               decade but from the next. BP predicted that outside of North America, China will be the most
                               successful in developing shale natural gas, which is estimated to account for about 20% of
                               total Chinese natural gas production by 2030. Still, BP asserts that even with shale natural
                               gas development, China’s natural gas/LNG import needs will remain strong given
                               expectations for rapid demand growth.

                               China’s track record shows that it places very high weight to energy security, so one should
                               expect substantial resources being devoted in the coming years to overcome key constraints
                               like water, expertise, and pipelines. 2 Large state-owned Chinese energy companies are
                               investing in the US with expectations of picking up shale-related skills and expertise, and they
                               are setting up joint ventures with major global energy companies for the same reason. Social
                               and environmental frictions are likely but the authorities have demonstrated in the past that
                               they are capable on overcoming them.

                               The potential for China’s shale development to exceed expectations in terms of timing and
                               production volumes cannot be discounted. A combination of supportive policy measures – a
                               key one being the reform of natural gas pricing – and technological advances could prompt a
                               shale revolution in China that would once again send experts redrawing the landscape for the
                               global energy balance.

                               Figure 16: Top 10 holders of shale natural gas reserves
                                                                                                                                                                                          Tcf
                                                China                                                                                                                                   1275
                                                    US                                                                                          862
                                         Argentina                                                                                      774
                                             Mexico                                                                            681
                                      South Africa                                                          485
                                           Australia                                                396
                                             Canada                                                388
                                                Libya                                     290
                                              Algeria                               231
                                                Brazil                              226
                               Technically recoverable reserves refers to reserves that are producible using current recovery technology without reference to economic profitability. From the “World
                               Shale Natural gas Resources: An Initial Assessment of 14 Regions Outside the United States” published April 5, 2011 by the EIA. Source: US DOE/EIA, Deutsche Bank




                               2
                                   Last October, a round of auctions for shale exploration in Southern China drew 152 bids from 83 companies.


Page 10                                                                                                                                              Deutsche Bank AG/Hong Kong
22 March 2013           Asia Economics Special


                                        Impact on the rest of Asia
                                        Most Asian economies are importers of energy, with Australia, Malaysia, and Indonesia three
                                        notable exceptions, but all are likely to be profoundly impacted by shale related
                                        developments. The structural change that is ongoing may well end the commodity super-
                                        cycle, thus ushering an era of energy price stability.3 For a country like India, which spends
                                        nearly 40% of its total import bill on coal and oil, and runs a large current account deficit,
                                        energy price stability or decline would bring significant dividends in terms of external stability
                                        and domestic disinflationary dynamic. For Japan, lower energy pricing, combined with access
                                        to cheaper LNG imports from the US, could provide a significant boost for an economy that
                                        was left increasingly exposed to energy costs following the Fukushima disaster (as imported
                                        power fuel has been used to offset the loss of nuclear power).

                                        Australia could soon be the next big player in the shale complex. The Arckaringa Basin
                                        surrounding Coober Pedy is estimated to contain billions of barrels of oil, with the upper end
                                        of estimates (230bn barrels) amounting to several times the total stock of oil in the country.
                                        Even if the estimates prove to be half right, Australia would switch from being an oil importer
                                        to oil exporter.

                                        The LNG industry players in Australia and Indonesia, having invested heavily in recent years
                                        with Asia’s seemingly insatiable demand in mind, are looking at the shale developments
                                        nervously, however. If global natural gas prices correct with US exports, that would be an
                                        unambiguous negative for the LNG industry, not just in Australia and Indonesia, but to the
                                        massive producers in the middle-east.

                                        Australia and Indonesia have thrived in recent years on the back of soaring coal exports, with
                                        coal making up about an average of 15% and 14% of total exports, respectively. Over the
                                        long term, a meaningful shift away from coal to cleaner-burning natural gas driven by
                                        environmental as well as energy diversification imperatives, notably in China, could have
                                        significant ramifications for the global coal market and key exporting countries that have
                                        depended on China’s rising coal appetite.

Figure 17: Key energy importers will benefit from shale                          Figure 18: Key energy exporters could be hurt by shale

    % of total                                                                      % of total
                          Coal    Oil    Natural gas                                                     Australia   Indonesia     Malaysia
    imports                                                                         exports
   40                                                                               20

   30                                                                               16

   20                                                                               12

   10                                                                                 8

     0                                                                                4

                                                                                      0
                                                                                                     Coal               Oil              Natural gas
Source: Deutsche Bank                                                            Source: Deutsche Bank




                                        3
                                          Of course, we recognize that substantial investment in conventional energy infrastructure in the past decade by many
                                        countries, as well as some reduction in geo-political risks, are other reasons for a flattening of energy prices.

Deutsche Bank AG/Hong Kong                                                                                                                           Page 11
22 March 2013   Asia Economics Special


                               Fiscal regimes in Asia have been deeply impacted by the commodity super cycle in recent
                               years. Malaysia’s budget, for example, derives 40% of its revenue from commodity related
                               activities. Indonesia and India spend several percentage of GDP in fuel subsidies, without
                               which their fiscal and balance of payments positions would be considerably stronger. These
                               dynamics would be neutralized if not reversed as ample supply from shale continues to
                               dampen natural gas and oil prices.

                               In this study we have made the case that shale is a potentially disruptive technological
                               development, with far-reaching implications for energy prices, security, trading, and geo-
                               politics. During the latter part of the last decade, when energy prices soared, proponents of
                               the commodity super-cycle insisted high prices were here to stay. Supply-side developments
                               since then, however, show that persistently high prices create strong incentives to harvest
                               previously unprofitable sources. Also, extraction technology is dynamic, with innovations
                               lowering the cost of exploration and extraction over time. Shale developments have changed
                               the US energy landscape already; we look forward to seeing the global spillovers in the
                               coming years and decades.




Page 12                                                                                         Deutsche Bank AG/Hong Kong
22 March 2013     Asia Economics Special




Appendix 1
Important Disclosures
Additional information available upon request
For disclosures pertaining to recommendations or estimates made on a security mentioned in this report, please see
the most recently published company report or visit our global disclosure look-up page on our website at
http://gm.db.com/ger/disclosure/DisclosureDirectory.eqsr.


Analyst Certification
The views expressed in this report accurately reflect the personal views of the undersigned lead analyst(s). In addition, the
undersigned lead analyst(s) has not and will not receive any compensation for providing a specific recommendation or view in
this report. Taimur Baig/Soozhana Choi




Deutsche Bank AG/Hong Kong                                                                                           Page 13
22 March 2013      Asia Economics Special


Regulatory Disclosures
1. Important Additional Conflict Disclosures
Aside from within this report, important conflict disclosures can also be found at https://gm.db.com/equities under the
“Disclosures Lookup” and “Legal” tabs. Investors are strongly encouraged to review this information before investing.

2. Short-Term Trade Ideas
Deutsche Bank equity research analysts sometimes have shorter-term trade ideas (known as SOLAR ideas) that are consistent
or inconsistent with Deutsche Bank’s existing longer term ratings. These trade ideas can be found at the SOLAR link at
http://gm.db.com.

3. Country-Specific Disclosures
Australia and New Zealand: This research, and any access to it, is intended only for “wholesale clients” within the meaning of
the Australian Corporations Act and New Zealand Financial Advisors Act respectively.
Brazil: The views expressed above accurately reflect personal views of the authors about the subject company(ies) and
its(their) securities, including in relation to Deutsche Bank. The compensation of the equity research analyst(s) is indirectly
affected by revenues deriving from the business and financial transactions of Deutsche Bank. In cases where at least one
Brazil based analyst (identified by a phone number starting with +55 country code) has taken part in the preparation of this
research report, the Brazil based analyst whose name appears first assumes primary responsibility for its content from a
Brazilian regulatory perspective and for its compliance with CVM Instruction # 483.
EU       countries:      Disclosures      relating    to    our     obligations under    MiFiD      can     be     found     at
http://www.globalmarkets.db.com/riskdisclosures.
Japan: Disclosures under the Financial Instruments and Exchange Law: Company name - Deutsche Securities Inc. Registration
number - Registered as a financial instruments dealer by the Head of the Kanto Local Finance Bureau (Kinsho) No. 117.
Member of associations: JSDA, Type II Financial Instruments Firms Association, The Financial Futures Association of Japan,
Japan Investment Advisers Association. This report is not meant to solicit the purchase of specific financial instruments or
related services. We may charge commissions and fees for certain categories of investment advice, products and services.
Recommended investment strategies, products and services carry the risk of losses to principal and other losses as a result of
changes in market and/or economic trends, and/or fluctuations in market value. Before deciding on the purchase of financial
products and/or services, customers should carefully read the relevant disclosures, prospectuses and other documentation.
“Moody’s”, “Standard & Poor’s”, and “Fitch” mentioned in this report are not registered credit rating agencies in Japan
unless “Japan” or “Nippon” is specifically designated in the name of the entity.
Malaysia: Deutsche Bank AG and/or its affiliate(s) may maintain positions in the securities referred to herein and may from
time to time offer those securities for purchase or may have an interest to purchase such securities. Deutsche Bank may
engage in transactions in a manner inconsistent with the views discussed herein.
Russia: This information, interpretation and opinions submitted herein are not in the context of, and do not constitute, any
appraisal or evaluation activity requiring a license in the Russian Federation.
Risks to Fixed Income Positions
Macroeconomic fluctuations often account for most of the risks associated with exposures to instruments that promise to pay
fixed or variable interest rates. For an investor that is long fixed rate instruments (thus receiving these cash flows), increases in
interest rates naturally lift the discount factors applied to the expected cash flows and thus cause a loss. The longer the
maturity of a certain cash flow and the higher the move in the discount factor, the higher will be the loss. Upside surprises in
inflation, fiscal funding needs, and FX depreciation rates are among the most common adverse macroeconomic shocks to
receivers. But counterparty exposure, issuer creditworthiness, client segmentation, regulation (including changes in assets
holding limits for different types of investors), changes in tax policies, currency convertibility (which may constrain currency
conversion, repatriation of profits and/or the liquidation of positions), and settlement issues related to local clearing houses are
also important risk factors to be considered. The sensitivity of fixed income instruments to macroeconomic shocks may be
mitigated by indexing the contracted cash flows to inflation, to FX depreciation, or to specified interest rates – these are
common in emerging markets. It is important to note that the index fixings may – by construction – lag or mis-measure the
actual move in the underlying variables they are intended to track. The choice of the proper fixing (or metric) is particularly
important in swaps markets, where floating coupon rates (i.e., coupons indexed to a typically short-dated interest rate
reference index) are exchanged for fixed coupons. It is also important to acknowledge that funding in a currency that differs
from the currency in which the coupons to be received are denominated carries FX risk. Naturally, options on swaps
(swaptions) also bear the risks typical to options in addition to the risks related to rates movements.

Page 14                                                                                                 Deutsche Bank AG/Hong Kong
                                                                 David Folkerts-Landau
                                                                        Managing Director
                                                                     Global Head of Research

        Marcel Cassard                      Ralf Hoffmann & Bernhard Speyer                                           Guy Ashton                                     Richard Smith
         Global Head                                   Co-Heads                                                 Chief Operating Officer                            Associate Director
        CB&S Research                                 DB Research                                                      Research                                     Equity Research

                         Asia-Pacific                                                     Germany                                                          Americas
                       Fergus Lynch                                               Andreas Neubauer                                                     Steve Pollard
                       Regional Head                                               Regional Head                                                       Regional Head


Principal Locations
Deutsche Bank AG                         Deutsche Bank AG                                          Deutsche Bank AG                                   Deutsche Securities Inc.
London                                   New York                                                  Hong Kong                                          Japan
1 Great Winchester Street                60 Wall Street                                            Filiale Hongkong                                   2-11-1 Nagatacho
London EC2N 2EQ                          New York, NY 10005                                        Intl. Commerce Centre                              Sanno Park Tower
Tel: (44) 20 7545 8000                   United States of America                                  1 Austin Road West Kowloon,                        Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-6171
                                         Tel: (1) 212 250-2500                                     Hong Kong                                          Tel: (81) 3 5156 6770
                                                                                                   tel: (852) 2203 8888
Deutsche Bank AG                         Deutsche Bank Ltd.                                        Deutsche Bank AG                                   Deutsche Bank AG
Frankfurt                                Aurora business park                                      Singapore                                          Australia
Große Gallusstraße 10-14                 82 bld.2 Sadovnicheskaya street                           One Raffles Quay                                   Deutsche Bank Place, Level 16
60272 Frankfurt am Main                  Moscow, 115035                                            South Tower                                        Corner of Hunter & Phillip Streets
Germany                                  Russia                                                    Singapore 048583                                   Sydney NSW 2000
Tel: (49) 69 910 00                      Tel: (7) 495 797-5000                                     Tel: (65) 6423 8001                                Tel: (61) 2 8258 1234

Deutsche Bank Dubai
Dubai International Financial Centre
The Gate, West Wing, Level 3
P.O. Box 504 902
Dubai City
Tel: (971) 4 3611 700



Publication Address:                    Global Disclaimer
Deutsche Bank AG
                                        The information and opinions in this report were prepared by Deutsche Bank AG or one of its affiliates (collectively “Deutsche Bank”). The information
London                                  herein is believed to be reliable and has been obtained from public sources believed to be reliable. Deutsche Bank makes no representation as to the
1 Great Winchester Street               accuracy or completeness of such information.
London EC2N 2EQ                         Deutsche Bank may engage in securities transactions, on a proprietary basis or otherwise, in a manner inconsistent with the view taken in this research
                                        report. In addition, others within Deutsche Bank, including strategists and sales staff, may take a view that is inconsistent with that taken in this
Tel: (44) 20 7545 8000                  research report.
                                        Opinions, estimates and projections in this report constitute the current judgement of the author as of the date of this report. They do not necessarily
                                        reflect the opinions of Deutsche Bank and are subject to change without notice. Deutsche Bank has no obligation to update, modify or amend this
Internet:                               report or to otherwise notify a recipient thereof in the event that any opinion, forecast or estimate set forth herein, changes or subsequently becomes
http://gmr.db.com                       inaccurate. Prices and availability of financial instruments are subject to change without notice. This report is provided for informational purposes only. It
                                        is not an offer or a solicitation of an offer to buy or sell any financial instruments or to participate in any particular trading strategy. Target prices are
Ask your usual contact for a            inherently imprecise and a product of the analyst judgement.
username and password.                  As a result of Deutsche Bank’s March 2010 acquisition of BHF-Bank AG, a security may be covered by more than one analyst within the Deutsche Bank
                                        group. Each of these analysts may use differing methodologies to value the security; as a result, the recommendations may differ and the price targets
                                        and estimates of each may vary widely.
                                        In August 2009, Deutsche Bank instituted a new policy whereby analysts may choose not to set or maintain a target price of certain issuers under
                                        coverage with a Hold rating. In particular, this will typically occur for “Hold” rated stocks having a market cap smaller than most other companies in its
                                        sector or region. We believe that such policy will allow us to make best use of our resources. Please visit our website at http://gm.db.com to determine
                                        the target price of any stock.
                                        The financial instruments discussed in this report may not be suitable for all investors and investors must make their own informed investment
                                        decisions. Stock transactions can lead to losses as a result of price fluctuations and other factors. If a financial instrument is denominated in a currency
                                        other than an investor’s currency, a change in exchange rates may adversely affect the investment. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of
                                        future results. Deutsche Bank may with respect to securities covered by this report, sell to or buy from customers on a principal basis, and consider this
                                        report in deciding to trade on a proprietary basis.
                                        Unless governing law provides otherwise, all transactions should be executed through the Deutsche Bank entity in the investor’s home jurisdiction. In
                                        the U.S. this report is approved and/or distributed by Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., a member of the NYSE, the NASD, NFA and SIPC. In Germany this
                                        report is approved and/or communicated by Deutsche Bank AG Frankfurt authorized by the BaFin. In the United Kingdom this report is approved and/or
                                        communicated by Deutsche Bank AG London, a member of the London Stock Exchange and regulated by the Financial Services Authority for the
                                        conduct of investment business in the UK and authorized by the BaFin. This report is distributed in Hong Kong by Deutsche Bank AG, Hong Kong
                                        Branch, in Korea by Deutsche Securities Korea Co. This report is distributed in Singapore by Deutsche Bank AG, Singapore Branch or Deutsche
                                        Securities Asia Limited, Singapore Branch, and recipients in Singapore of this report are to contact Deutsche Bank AG, Singapore Branch or Deutsche
                                        Securities Asia Limited, Singapore Branch in respect of any matters arising from, or in connection with, this report. Where this report is issued or
                                        promulgated in Singapore to a person who is not an accredited investor, expert investor or institutional investor (as defined in the applicable Singapore
                                        laws and regulations), Deutsche Bank AG, Singapore Branch or Deutsche Securities Asia Limited, Singapore Branch accepts legal responsibility to such
                                        person for the contents of this report. In Japan this report is approved and/or distributed by Deutsche Securities Inc. The information contained in this
                                        report does not constitute the provision of investment advice. In Australia, retail clients should obtain a copy of a Product Disclosure Statement (PDS)
                                        relating to any financial product referred to in this report and consider the PDS before making any decision about whether to acquire the product.
                                        Deutsche Bank AG Johannesburg is incorporated in the Federal Republic of Germany (Branch Register Number in South Africa: 1998/003298/10).
                                        Additional information relative to securities, other financial products or issuers discussed in this report is available upon request. This report may not be
                                        reproduced, distributed or published by any person for any purpose without Deutsche Bank’s prior written consent. Please cite source when quoting.
                                        Copyright © 2013 Deutsche Bank AG

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags: Deutsche, Bank
Stats:
views:1
posted:4/7/2013
language:
pages:15
Description: Shale shock