EUROPEAN GAS SHORT-TERM ANALYSIS - Carbon vs. Gas: Who's in the driver's seat? - POLITICO.eu
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
EUROPEAN GAS SHORT-TERM ANALYSIS April 7, 2021 Carbon vs. Gas: Who’s in the driver’s seat? The extent of the gas price rally this past month, with TTF May-21 rising more than 25% since March 3, cannot be explained via fundamental analysis. It frankly leaves us pointing in many different directions trying to justify the move. What is clear is that the rally coincides with strength in carbon, trading at record highs, and coal prices. What is less clear is which commodity is driving which. Between 2017 and 2019 we saw gas prices as the main driver of carbon, as the coal/gas switching mechanism was the main driver of carbon fundamentals. That relationship has seemingly flipped over the past year, as carbon markets no longer trade on the back of prompt fundamentals, instead focused on longer-term growth potential. A normalisation of gas storage stocks over Winter-20 also now makes the gas market more responsive to carbon and coal price moves as it limits levels of coal to gas switching. But the gas price rally in March has been even more dramatic than that of the CSP, and hence carbon alone cannot justify the move. Betting on higher gas prices has been a winning trade over the past ten months, and hence momentum may keep prices supported for a little while longer, but the further they rise the bigger the potential fall. Lead Indicators ◼ NWE storage ended March very close to our expectations, or 24% full. Withdrawals slowed m-o-m as demand fell with temperatures rising to seasonal normal and LNG supply soared ◼ Over the past month TTF W-21 prices increased in line with the wider commodities prices, but the gas market fundamentals are not supportive and we do not expect to see further strength from the technical analysis point of view either ◼ Algerian flows to Italy will continue to see y-o-y growth for early Q2 but ease over the summer, as much of the annual contractual volumes have been nominated over the past winter TTF takes a back seat as carbon prices grab the wheel ◼ The support in TTF prices through March is not justified purely by gas market fundamentals, but has largely been driven by high EUA carbon prices ◼ Despite tighter long-term balances, Platts Analytics maintains that near-term carbon prices must reflect the relatively weak near- term supply-demand picture (after the current compliance period ends in late-Apr) ◼ Considering forecast EUA prices, rather than market prices, would reduce our S-21 TTF forecast by around €1.3/MWh (Page 3) Record high S-21 TTF curve prices don’t reflect fundamentals ◼ Recent support for S-21 TTF follows recent momentum and strong coal and carbon prices, rather than bullish gas market fundamentals ◼ Fundamentals remain bearish going into S-21, despite the current low NWE stocks, as most supply sources are expected to rebound, and the current summer-winter spread does not incentivize injections into Ukrainian storage by foreign shippers ◼ Unavailability of the Grijpskerk facility, higher year-on-year renewable generation and a looser Q3-21 balance than Q2-21 reinforces our view that current S-21 market curve is unsustainably high (Page 4) NS2 likely constrained ~30 Bcm/a below capacity if third party access regulations upheld ◼ With NS2 pipe-laying back on track and expected to be completed in Q3-21, focus turns to the European third-party access regulation that applies to NS2 as well as the onshore connections bringing Russian gas into Europe ◼ With 80% of EUGAL capacity booked on a long-term basis and 50% of capacity likely available for Gazprom on OPAL, we expect NS2 to be ~30 Bcm/a underutilised if Gazprom does not amend its delivery destinations ◼ Underutilisation of NS2 pipelines would ultimately lead to higher than expected Ukrainian transit at least until the 5-year agreement expires, thus affecting NWE locational spreads but having a limited impact on overall pricing (Page 5) ANALYTICS REPORT EuroGasAnalytics@spglobal.com
PLATTS EUROPEAN GAS SHORT-TERM ANALYSIS APRIL 7, 2021
Lead Indicators: NWE storages end W-20 at only 24%, but rebounding supply will
undermine the rallying TTF curve
Strong Algerian pipeline flows will continue
Algerian pipeline gas sold to Italy under long-term contracts became
this month but ease over summer
profitable again in Q4-20, for the first time since Jan-19 with flows
towards Italy and Spain increasing to levels not seen since W-17. On the
change in flows y-o-y (mcm/d)
70
50 left you see how Q1-21 volumes averaged significantly above Q1-20
30 levels. We expect Algerian gas to remain in the money for the
10 remainder of this year and in Q1-22.
-10 Since the oil-indexed formula has been well in the money since
-30 October-20, and we assume contracts are on a GY basis (in the case
-50 of Italy), summer imports are capped by what remains of the annual
contractual volumes. During Winter our main assumption suggests
that flows will average above ToP but at lower levels than Q4-20
Italy Spain given that TAP is expected to double in volume and keep PSV prices
suppressed.
March-21 NWE LDC demand was aligned with
temperature-corrected historical normal March NWE LDC demand declined by 17% m-o-m as core winter passed
700 and heating demand eased, but still out-turned 4% higher vs. Mar-20
600
(which was not affected by COVID yet). Even though strong lockdown
R² = 0.98
measures were still in place in parts of the NWE regions, the net impact
500 of these measures to LDC demand was negligible. As shown in the left
mcm/d
400
chart, the deviation in March LDC demand from historical levels are fully
R² = 0.96
explained by variations in temperatures. March NWE industrial demand
300 out-turned 2% below the GY16-19 avg.
200 Restrictions are maintained or tightened in CNWE, putting downward
Average temperatures below 18 C
pressure on gas demand. However, the impact may be light as recent
NWE (excl DE/NL), 2011-2019 NWE (excl DE/NL), 2020 data showed confidence in businesses getting better at reacting to
NWE, 2016-2019 NWE, 2020 disruptions. Meanwhile, the heating season is not yet over, with
below normal NWE temperatures forecast to last until April 13.
NWE storage withdrawals in March NWE storage withdrawals in March at around 80 mcm/d were in line
plummet to 5-year average with the 5-year average but plummeted over 170 mcm/d compared to
300 February, as LNG arrivals and sendout soared, while demand was
200 capped by temperatures averaging close to seasonal normal. In CEE,
100
storage withdrawals roughly halved month on month to just below 50
0
mcm/d
mcm/d. At the end of the storage year, NWE stocks were 24% full, while
-100
those in CEE were still 38% full.
-200
-300 In April we expect NWE storages inject 90 mcm/d on average,
-400 increasing further for May and June, before the Nord Stream
-500
maintenance works start in July. In CEE net storage injections are
expected to be minimal in April, before picking up to around 50
5-yr. range GY-20 GY-19 5-yr. avg. mcm/d in May.
TTF W-21 contract finds resistance at the
Prices have continued their bullish trend over the course of last month
Bollinger Upper/Lower spread
upper bollinger band
21 4 with TTF W-21 breaking just above €20/MWh. From a technical
20
19
perspective, the contract has been trading in line with the upper
3
18 Bollinger band with the volatility in the market (upper/lower Bollinger
€/MWh
17
2 band spread) hitting the highest since at least Apr-20. The contract
16
15
found strong resistance twice last month as it tried to break above the
14 1 Bollinger envelope.
13
12 0 Volatility has narrowed this month, suggesting that rapid
movements are not likely to take place. Apart from Bollinger band
indicator, RSI and Fibonacci retracement levels also indicate that
Volatility (Upper-Lower) TTF W-21 TTF W-21 is very close to overbought territory with very little space
Upper band Lower band left for further upward movement.
© 2021 S&P Global Platts, a division of S&P Global Inc. All rights reserved. 2PLATTS EUROPEAN GAS SHORT-TERM ANALYSIS APRIL 7, 2021
TTF takes a back seat as carbon prices grab the wheel
◼ The support in TTF prices through March is not justified purely by gas market fundamentals, but has largely been driven by high
EUA carbon prices
◼ Despite tighter long-term balances, Platts Analytics maintains that near-term carbon prices must reflect the relatively weak
near-term supply-demand picture (after the current compliance period ends in late-Apr)
◼ Considering forecast EUA prices, rather than market prices, would reduce our S-21 TTF forecast by around €1.3/MWh
Historically European carbon prices (EUAs) have been driven by policy developments (such as votes in the EU Parliament), negotiations,
and the market surplus (both current and expected). However since GY-16 power sector implied carbon prices, or the carbon price
required to move from coal-fired generation in favour of gas-fired generation, have re-emerged as one of the key price-setting
mechanism, strengthening the correlation between gas and carbon prices ( left chart). All else equal, rising gas prices make the cost of
switching from coal to gas more expensive, adding upward pressure to EUAs. Coal prices have the opposite effect. However, since 2019
the two price series have decorrelated substantially, at least on the prompt, as carbon allowances remained relatively stable between
€20 and €25/tCO2, while gas DA prices saw a significant downward shift on the back of two mild winters and a wave of LNG that drove
storage stocks to record highs last year.
Carbon prices on upward trend since 2018, Gas/carbon correlation strengthens in March
while gas prices fluctuated 28
30 45
26
25 40 R² = 0.0204
TTF DA (€/MWh)
24
35
20 22 R² = 0.0144
30
€/MWh
€/tCO2
20
15 25
18
10 20
16
15 R² = 0.7302
5 14
10
12
0 5
10
EUA prompt (€/tCO2)
TTF DA EUA Jan Feb Mar
As gas prices recovered this winter, EUA prices also rose at a similar rate, prompting the two hundred billion dollar question (the value of
traded EU ETS exceeded this level in 2020)1: which market is leading the rally, and which is being driven?
It is difficult to determine if either EUAs or TTF jumped “first” in January and early February 2021, as below normal temperatures
supported both from a fundamental demand perspective. Furthermore, fundamentals in both markets were tightened by additional
bullish elements: the gas market saw record-high withdrawals while struggling with LNG arrivals surprising to the downside, as the
carbon market saw an extended auction drought, which limited short-term EU ETS supply. Interestingly, the R squared between TTF DA
price and prompt EUA prices is below 5% in January and February ( right chart), indicating that it is possible that, on a daily basis, both
markets moved independently from the other (although both moved upward across the month).
However, the R2 jumps to 72% when considering prices in March (right chart). We don’t believe gas market fundamentals were
sufficiently tight in March to justify the TTF DA strengthening more than €2/MWh from the beginning to the end of the month. LNG
deliveries in Europe almost tripled from January levels to above 300 mcm/d, Russian flows rose month on month and 12.4 mcm/d of
short-term UA transit capacity was booked for April, signalling Gazprom is willing to flow above long-term capacity. Some unplanned
NCS maintenance and the recent Suez Canal blockage, along with relatively low NWE storage stocks certainly created temporary bullish
sentiment and leave the gas market more exposed to further bullish sentiment, but alone are not enough to justify a €2/MWh increase.
EUA prices remain very strong, having hit new record highs of €44/tCO2 following the Easter holidays. Bullishness at the moment is
linked to the 2020 compliance period in April as well as ongoing gains in investor interest. Investors remain quite willing to buy any price
dip but there is still a possibility of a policymaker intervention. Near-term EU ETS supply-demand fundamentals are weak on ample
supply and power sector EUA demand pushed lower from strong hydro and returning French nuclear. Though the future behaviour of
investors remains far from certain and while we expect tighter balances long-term, Platts Analytics maintains that prices must
eventually reflect the market’s near-term supply-demand imbalance and power sector abatement costs (see our next EU ETS Monthly
Outlook, published next week).
Our TTF forecast for S-21 based on market carbon prices is already significantly bearish to TTF (see page 4). Considering forecast EUA
prices, rather than market prices, would further reduce our TTF forecast for the remainder of S-21 by around €1.2/MWh.
Balance of S-21 TTF prices are supported by high carbon prices. While our EUA forecast is bearish to market based on carbon market
fundamentals, the question remains: how long the speculative rally can be sustained?
1https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/coal/012721-global-carbon-market-grows-20-to-272-billion-in-2020-
refinitiv
© 2021 S&P Global Platts, a division of S&P Global Inc. All rights reserved. 3PLATTS EUROPEAN GAS SHORT-TERM ANALYSIS APRIL 7, 2021
Record high S-21 TTF curve prices don’t reflect fundamentals
◼ Recent support for S-21 TTF follows recent momentum and strong coal and carbon prices, rather than bullish gas market
fundamentals
◼ Fundamentals remain bearish going into S-21, despite the current low NWE stocks, as most supply sources are expected to
rebound, and the current summer-winter spread does not incentivize injections into Ukrainian storage by foreign shippers
◼ Unavailability of the Grijpskerk facility, higher year-on-year renewable generation and a looser Q3-21 balance than Q2-21
reinforces our view that current S-21 market curve is unsustainably high
With the exception of the recent downward review in the weather forecast affecting prompt prices, the continuous support for S-21 TTF
prices comes more from strong coal and carbon prices than from bullish gas market fundamentals. In particular, the latest market curve
for Q2-21 indicates TTF prices more than 3 times higher than Q2-20 out-turn prices. While we agree there should be a significant year-on-
year price recovery, we see a more bearish balance for this summer than the market anticipates. Our forecast of NWE gas fundamentals
for S-21 suggests the need for 19 mcm/d (3.4 Bcm) of additional coal-to-gas switching in CNWE, compared to what is implied by the S-21
market curve.
The general bearishness we see for this summer comes from a year-on-year rebound of almost all supply sources, including Norway,
Russia and LNG. Domestic NWE production is the exception (-7 mcm/d), especially as UKCS sees unusually strong maintenance in Q2-21.
The year-on-year change in demand is not substantial, as higher y-o-y demand in Q2 is mostly offset by lower y-o-y demand in Q3. While
low NWE stocks exiting winter can largely absorb the supply rebound, hence the expected price recovery compared to last summer, the
current summer/winter spread does not incentivise injections into Ukrainian storage, which supported fundamentals last year. There are
three further bearish factors we believe the market might be underestimating:
1. First, we anticipate CNWE storage stocks to fill to 47.4 Bcm by end of October-21. While this is only 95% of the overall CNWE stock
capacity, it is around 99% of the capacity when excluding around 2 Bcm of space available in the Grijpskerk facility, which we assume
cannot be filled by injections this summer, as the facility will undergo conversion into an emergency L-gas storage. Assuming 2 Bcm of
additional space in storage for this summer would reduce the need for coal-to-gas switching and bring our forecast closer to the market.
2. Second, our S-21 forecast of gas-to-power demand that is not price responsive, which constitutes the “minimum” of the CNWE coal-
to-gas switching channel, is around 20 mcm/d lower than it was in S-19 and S-20. This is because we are assuming a strong year-on-year
growth in renewable generation (right chart below), as well as higher nuclear availability, which together squeeze the need for thermal
generation in CNWE. Assuming a level of non-responsive gas-to-power demand in line with S-20 would also significantly reduce the need
for coal-to-gas switching, bringing our S-21 TTF forecast in line with the market.
3. Finally, the current low CNWE stock level exiting winter (just below 12 Bcm, or 24% of capacity) could allow for stronger injections in
Q2-21 than we assume (around 142 mcm/d, roughly in line with Q2-20), limiting coal-to-gas switching and therefore supporting TTF
prices. However, our forecast considers that the NWE balance for Q3-21 is significantly more bearish than for Q2-21 and would need
much more injections than in Q3-20. If TTF prices remain supported in Q2-21 until storage stocks start to look more comfortable, then we
would expect prices to come off even more dramatically at out-turn in Q3-21 than our current forecast suggests, as the market will then
need more significant levels of coal-to-gas switching to balance.
We expect CNWE storages to inject more in Higher wind and solar generation reduces
Q3-21 than Q2-21 gas-to-power demand in S-21 vs. S-20
CNWE wind and solar output (GW)
100% 35
% CNWE stock fullness
80% 30
60% 25
40% 20
20% 15
10
0%
5
0
GY-16-18 range GY-19
GY-20 (incl. forecast) GY-21 forecast
The recent support for S-21 TTF prices does not seem justified by NWE gas market fundamentals. If prices remain supported
throughout Q2-21, Q3-21 will out-turn well below our current forecast.
© 2021 S&P Global Platts, a division of S&P Global Inc. All rights reserved. 4PLATTS EUROPEAN GAS SHORT-TERM ANALYSIS APRIL 7, 2021
NS2 likely constrained ~30 Bcm/a below capacity if third party access regulations
upheld
◼ With NS2 pipe-laying back on track and expected to be completed in Q3-21, focus turns to the European third-party access
regulation that applies to NS2 as well as the onshore connections bringing Russian gas into Europe
◼ With 80% of EUGAL capacity booked on a long-term basis and 50% of capacity likely available for Gazprom on OPAL, we expect
NS2 to be ~30 Bcm/a underutilised if Gazprom does not amend its delivery destinations
◼ Underutilisation of NS2 pipeline would ultimately lead to higher than expected Ukrainian transit at least until the 5-year
agreement expires, thus affecting NWE locational spreads but having a limited impact on overall pricing
Nord Stream 2 (NS2) has taken further steps towards completion with two
Russian pipelaying vessels Fortuna and Akademik Cherskiy now in the Danish
Exclusive Economic Zone working on the final 5% of the pipeline, which is
expected to be completed in Q3-21. Meanwhile, the onshore extension of the
pipeline EUGAL is now complete, after the second string of the pipeline
started its operations on April 1. With construction nearing completion and US
sanctions increasingly unlikely to force Gazprom to abandon the project, the
focus now shifts to the potential bottlenecks if European regulation prevent
NS and NS2 to flow at full capacity of 110 Bcm/a.
Restrictions on how much capacity Gazprom can book for the OPAL pipeline,
running mostly in parallel with EUGAL and carrying NS gas, came back into
effect in Sep. 2019 after the EU General Court annulled a 2016 European
Commission decision that gave Gazprom the right to bid for up to an extra 34
mcm/d of OPAL transit capacity. The ruling meant Gazprom’s access
conditions reverted to the previous third-party access exemption decision
agreed by the EC and German regulator Bundesnetzagentur in 2009 that no
more than 50% of OPAL capacity would be available for Gazprom. It came
after Poland successfully convinced the court that the EC’s decision breached
the EU energy solidarity principle. Germany has appealed the latest decision,
but the appeal is expected to be dismissed. However, Gazprom may still look
to apply for a new exemption to allow it to book more OPAL capacity.
EUGAL’s first string, with capacity of 30.9 Bcm/a, runs from the landing point
of NS2 at Lubmin to Deutschneudorf on the DE>CZ border. It became
operational at the start of 2020 despite the NS2 delay and has been able to
flow gas from NS via the NEL link. The second string of EUGAL, which now Capacity Capacity
Connecting pipelines
runs from Lubmin to Weißack, boosted EUGAL’s capacity to 55 Bcm/a. As well (Bcm/a) (mcm/d)
as its link to NEL, EUGAL is also connected to the FGL306 and JAGAL FG306 21.4 59 JAGAL, EUGAL
NEL 20 55 NS, NS2, OPAL, EUGAL
pipelines flowing gas westward further into Germany. EUGAL will continue to
JAGAL 24 66 YAMAL, EUGAL, STEGAL
flow NS gas while capacity restrictions persist on the OPAL pipeline and until GAZELLE 30 82 OPAL, EUGAL, MEGAL
NS2 is completed. EUGAL 55 151 NS, NS2, NEL, JAGAL, NETRA, GAZELLE
OPAL 36 99 NS, NS2, NEL, GAZELLE
MEGAL 22 60 GAZELLE, MIDAL
Regulation restricting NS2 flows will result in
STEGAL 8 22 JAGAL , MIDAL, OPAL
higher Ukrainian transit
Further, the German section of NS2 itself will have to comply with
600 End of
Start of
Ukraine the amended EU Gas Directive, which now includes pipelines from
500 NS2
transit deal outside EU, whereby third party access to NS2 will have to be
400 made available. Given that 80% of EUGAL capacity (inland from
mcm/d
300 NS2) has already been booked on a long-term basis, in our base
200 case we expect that Gazprom will be allowed to utilise 80% (44
100 Bcm/a) of NS2 capacity. We then consider the capacity to flow
0
from Greifswald/Lubmin onward through EUGAL (80% at 44
Bcm/a), OPAL (50% at 18 Bcm/a) and NEL (100% at 20 Bcm/a)
pipelines where capacity adds up to 82 Bcm/a. As a result,
combined NS and NS2 flows would be constrained by 28 Bcm/a
Italy CEE NWE
NS Yamal TurkStream
(~25%) below the 110 Bcm/a nameplate capacity.
NS2* NS2 Ukraine booked
*Assuming NS2 runs 28 Bcm/a below capacity In the medium-run, the underutilisation of NS2 capacity is
unlikely to affect Russian flows to Europe, but will support
Ukrainian transit, especially until 2025 when the current long-term Gazprom-Naftogaz agreement ends. A possible way for NS2,
OPAL and EUGAL flows to be maximised could be for Gazprom to move delivery destinations to the start of NS2 or OPAL/EUGAL in
order to allow the utilisation of these pipelines by third party shippers.
© 2021 S&P Global Platts, a division of S&P Global Inc. All rights reserved. 5PLATTS EUROPEAN GAS SHORT-TERM ANALYSIS APRIL 7, 2021
DEFINITIONS
ACQ Annual Contract Quantity - is the volume of gas agreed to be exchanged between a buyer and a seller under a
long-term gas sale agreement for a given contract year.
Bollinger Bands Bollinger Bands is an analytical tool which uses the concept of standard deviation to construct bands around
the moving average. If the current price has crossed the upper band, the market is considered in overbought
territory and similarly, if the price has crossed the lower band the underlying market is considered oversold.
Upper and lower bands can also be used as support and resistance points.
CDS Clean Dark Spread - Theoretical gross income of coal-fired power plant from selling a unit of electricity,
having bought the coal fuel and emission cost to produce this unit of electricity.
CEE Central and Eastern Europe, including Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Austria and Czech Republic.
CSP Coal Switching Price – An estimate of the gas price at which standard efficiency coal plant and standard
efficiency gas plant are equally profitable – i.e. the point at which a 50% efficient gas plant would run in
favour of a 40% efficient coal plant and vice versa. The range of efficiencies and plant costs means there is a
switching channel around this price. The CSP is used in our analysis of coal-to-gas switching in Continental
North West Europe, while the CSP effective in the UK (UK CSP) also accounts for the UK Government’s Carbon
Price Support.
CSS Clean Spark Spread - Similar to CDS applied to the gas-fired power plant with efficiency of 50% purchasing
gas in the relevant geographical market.
Coal-to-gas Range of gas prices between minimum and maximum gas-to-power generation, based on assumed coal and
switching channel carbon prices as well as relevant plant efficiencies.
DCQ Daily Contract Quantities – Daily amount of gas which must be taken under a long-term gas sale agreement.
Delivered cost of US The cost of US LNG delivered to Europe, calculated as Henry Hub, multiplied by 115% to cover standard
LNG liquefaction fees, plus midstream transportation cost including freight, cost of boil-off, and entry into
destination markets.
Electronic Sales Gazprom’s platform for short-term gas sales in Europe. Active since September 20, 2018.
Platform (ESP)
Fibonacci Fibonacci retracement levels are created by taking two extreme points and dividing the vertical distance by
retracement levels the key Fibonacci ratios of 23.6%, 38.2%, 50%, 61.8% and 100%. Once these levels are identified, they are
used to spot possible support and resistance levels.
FSRU Floating Storage Regasification Unit - An LNG vessel, purpose built or converted, that is not only capable of
transporting LNG but can also vaporise and deliver LNG through specially designed offshore or near-shore
facilities.
HDD Heating Degree Days - quantitative index designed to reflect need for heating. Calculated as difference
between a reference value of 65 F (18 C) and the average outside temperature for that day.
LNG Netbacks An estimate of the short-run incentives facing LNG export capacity holders. When the netback is above zero,
it indicates that there is an incentive to utilize contracted export capacity because the spread between the
supply market and the destination market is greater than the sum of the variable costs of exporting an LNG
cargo. The netbacks calculation also indicates which global markets are offering premium pricing, once
variable costs are accounted for.
LRS Long range storage - Storage type with typically seasonal injection and withdrawal.
Moving Average MACD is a trend-following momentum indicator that shows the relationship between two moving averages
Convergence (MACD line and Signal Line). It is used to spot changes in the strength and direction of the underlying
Divergence (MACD) commodity and also measures the sentiment of the market. The standard interpretation is to buy when the
MACD line crosses up through the signal line, or sell when it crosses down through the signal line.
MRS Medium range storage –Storage type with shorter recycle circle typically following market price changes.
NWE Northwest Europe, including Germany, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, the UK, Denmark, Sweden and
Luxembourg.
Oil index price (9,0,3) A common oil index price with a 9-month oil reference period, zero time-lapse between the reference and
the delivery period and is applicable for a 3-month delivery period. Another common index is (6,0,3), applied
for example for Algerian pipeline contracts.
Relative Strength RSI measures the velocity of a security's price movement to identify overbought and oversold conditions. An
Index (RSI) RSI indicator falling below a value of 30 indicates an oversold condition. Similarly, an RSI value greater than
70 indicates an overbought condition.
SE Southern Europe, including Spain, Italy and Portugal
Take-or-Pay A provision obligating the buyer in a long-term gas sale agreement to either “take” delivery of a minimum
volume of gas or to pay for it.
WD, DA, WE, WDNW, Contracts for delivery Within Day, Day Ahead, Weekend, Working Days Next Week, Balance of Month, Month
BOM, MA, QA, SA Ahead, Quarter Ahead, Season Ahead.
© 2021 S&P Global Platts, a division of S&P Global Inc. All rights reserved. 6PLATTS EUROPEAN GAS SHORT-TERM ANALYSIS APRIL 7, 2021
EUROPEAN GAS MONTHLY (SHORT-TERM) ANALYSIS REPORT
For inquiries related to gas markets, please contact our team: EuroGasAnalytics@spglobal.com
Analysts – European Gas
Valentina Bonetti
Ying-chin Chou
Adrian Dorsch
Ornela Figurinaite
James Huckstepp
Konstantinos Pantazopoulos
Anita Porta
Anna Sutcliffe
© 2021 S&P Global Platts, a division of S&P Global Inc. All rights of the Data should not rely on any information and/or assessment
reserved. contained therein in making any investment, trading, risk management
or other decision. S&P Global Platts, its affiliates and their third-party
The names “S&P Global Platts” and “Platts” and the S&P Global Platts licensors do not guarantee the adequacy, accuracy, timeliness and/or
logo are trademarks of S&P Global Inc. Permission for any commercial completeness of the Data or any component thereof or any
use of the S&P Global Platts logo must be granted in writing by S&P communications (whether written, oral, electronic or in other format),
Global Inc. and shall not be subject to any damages or liability, including but not
You may view or otherwise use the information, prices, indices, limited to any indirect, special, incidental, punitive or consequential
assessments and other related information, graphs, tables and images damages (including but not limited to, loss of profits, trading losses and
(“Data”) in this publication only for your personal use or, if you or your loss of goodwill).
company has a license for the Data from S&P Global Platts and you are ICE index data and NYMEX futures data used herein are provided under
an authorized user, for your company’s internal business use only. You S&P Global Platts’ commercial licensing agreements with ICE and with
may not publish, reproduce, extract, distribute, retransmit, resell, NYMEX. You acknowledge that the ICE index data and NYMEX futures
create any derivative work from and/or otherwise provide access to the data herein are confidential and are proprietary trade secrets and data
Data or any portion thereof to any person (either within or outside your of ICE and NYMEX or its licensors/suppliers, and you shall use best
company, including as part of or via any internal electronic system or efforts to prevent the unauthorized publication, disclosure or copying
intranet), firm or entity, including any subsidiary, parent, or other entity of the ICE index data and/or NYMEX futures data.
that is affiliated with your company, without S&P Global Platts’ prior
written consent or as otherwise authorized under license from S&P Permission is granted for those registered with the Copyright Clearance
Global Platts. Any use or distribution of the Data beyond the express Center (CCC) to copy material herein for internal reference or personal
uses authorized in this paragraph above is subject to the payment of use only, provided that appropriate payment is made to the CCC, 222
additional fees to S&P Global Platts. Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, phone +1-978-750-8400.
Reproduction in any other form, or for any other purpose, is forbidden
S&P Global Platts, its affiliates and all of their third-party licensors without the express prior permission of S&P Global Inc. For article
disclaim any and all warranties, express or implied, including, but not reprints contact: The YGS Group, phone +1-717-505-9701 x105 (800-501-
limited to, any warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular 9571 from the U.S.).
purpose or use as to the Data, or the results obtained by its use or as to
the performance thereof. Data in this publication includes independent For all other queries or requests pursuant to this notice, please contact
and verifiable data collected from actual market participants. Any user S&P Global Inc. via email at support@platts.com.
© 2021 S&P Global Platts, a division of S&P Global Inc. All rights reserved. 7You can also read
