Libya

Highlights Global oil markets will remain balanced this year with OPEC 2.0's production-management strategy geared toward maintaining the level of supply just below demand.  This will keep inventories on a downward trajectory, despite short-term upticks due to COVID-19-induced demand hits in EM economies and marginal supply additions from Iran and Libya over the near term. Our 2021 oil demand growth is lower – ~ 5.3mm b/d y/y, down ~ 800k from last month's estimate – given persistent weakness in realized consumption.  We have lifted our demand expectation for 2022 and 2023, however, expecting wider global vaccine distribution and increased travel toward year-end. The next few months are critical for OPEC 2.0: The trajectory for EM demand recovery will remain uncertain until vaccines are more widely distributed, and supply from Iran and Libya likely will increase this year.  This will lead to a slight bump in inventories this year, incentivizing KSA and Russia to maintain the status quo on the supply side. We are raising our 2021 Brent forecast back to $63/bbl from $60/bbl, and lifting our 2022 and 2023 forecasts to $75 and $78/bbl, respectively, given our expectation for a wider global recovery (Chart of the Week). Feature A number of evolving fundamental factors on both sides of the oil market – i.e., lingering uncertainty over the return of Iranian and Libyan exports and the strength of the global demand recovery – will test what we believe to be OPEC 2.0's production-management strategy in the next few months. Briefly, our maintained hypothesis views OPEC 2.0 as the dominant supplier in the global oil market. This is due to the low-cost production of its core members (i.e., those states able to attract capital and grow production), and its overwhelming advantage in spare capacity, which we reckon will average in excess of 7mm b/d this year, owing to the massive production cuts undertaken to drain inventories during the COVID-19 pandemic. Formidable storage assets globally – positioned in or near refining centers – and well-developed transportation infrastructures also support this position. We estimate core OPEC 2.0 production will average 26.58mm b/d this year and 29.43mm b/d in 2022 (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekBrent Prices Likely Correct Then Move Higher in 2022-23 Brent Prices Likely Correct Then Move Higher in 2022-23 Brent Prices Likely Correct Then Move Higher in 2022-23 Chart 2OPEC 2.0 Will Maintain Status Quo OPEC 2.0 Will Maintain Status Quo OPEC 2.0 Will Maintain Status Quo The putative leaders of the OPEC 2.0 coalition – the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia – have distinctly different goals. KSA's preference is for higher prices – ~ $70-$75/bbl (basis Brent) to the end of 2022. Higher prices are needed to fund the Kingdom's diversification away from oil. Russia's goal is to keep prices closer to the marginal cost of the US shale-oil producers, who we characterize as the exemplar of the price-taking cohort outside OPEC 2.0, which produces whatever the market allows. This range is ~ $50-$55/bbl. The sweet spot that accommodates these divergent goals is on either side of $65/bbl for this year. OPEC 2.0 June 1 Meeting Will Maintain Status Quo With Brent trading close to $70/bbl, discussions in the run-up to OPEC 2.0's June 1 meeting likely are focused on the necessity to increase the 2.1mm b/d being returned to the market over the May-July period. At present, we do not believe this will be necessary: Iran likely will be returning to the market beginning in 3Q21, and will top up its production from ~ 2.4mm b/d in April to ~ 3.85mm b/d by year-end, in our estimation. Any volumes returned to the market by core OPEC 2.0 in excess of what's already been agreed going into the June 1 meeting likely will come out of storage on an as-needed basis. Libya will likely lift its current production of ~ 1.3mm b/d close to 1.5mm b/d by year end as well. We are expecting the price-taking cohort ex-OPEC 2.0 to increase production from 53.78mm b/d in April to 53.86mm b/d in December, led by a 860k b/d increase in US output, which will take average Lower 48 output in the US (ex-GOM) to 9.15mm b/d by the end of this year (Chart 3). When we model shale output, our expectation is driven by the level of prompt WTI prices and the shape of the forward curve. The backwardation in the WTI forward curve will limit hedged revenues at the margin, which will limit the volume growth of the marginal producer. We expect global production to slowly increase next year, and the year after that, with supply averaging 101.07mm b/d in 2022 and 103mm b/d in 2023.  Chart 3US Crude Output Recovers, Then Tapers in 2023 US Crude Output Recovers, Then Tapers in 2023 US Crude Output Recovers, Then Tapers in 2023 Demand Should Lift, But Uncertainties Persist We expect the slowdown in realized DM demand to reverse in 2H21, and for oil demand to continue to recover in 2H21 as the US and EU re-open and travel picks up. This can be seen in our expectation for DM demand, which we proxy with OECD oil consumption (Chart 4). EM demand – proxied by non-OECD oil consumption – is expected to revive over 2022-23 as vaccine distribution globally picks up. As a result, demand growth shifts to EM, while DM levels off. China's refinery throughput in April came within 100k b/d of the record 14.2mm b/d posted in November 2020 (Chart 5). The marginal draw in April stockpiles could also signify that as crude prices have risen higher, the world’s largest oil importer may have hit the brakes on bringing oil in. In the chart, oil stored or drawn is calculated as the difference between what is imported and produced with what is processed in refineries. With refinery maintenance in high gear until the end of this month, we expect product-stock draws to remain strong on the back of domestic and export demand. This will draw inventories while maintenance continues. Chart 4EM Demand Will Recovery Accelerates in 2022-23 EM Demand Will Recovery Accelerates in 2022-23 EM Demand Will Recovery Accelerates in 2022-23 Chart 8China Refinery Runs Remain Strong China Refinery Runs Remain Strong China Refinery Runs Remain Strong COVID-19-induced demand destruction remains a persistent risk, particularly in India, Brazil and Japan. This is visible in the continued shortfall in realized demand vs our expectation so far this year. We lowered our 2021 oil demand growth estimate to ~ 5.3mm b/d y/y, which is down ~ 800k from last month's estimate, given persistent weakness in realized consumption. Our demand forecast for 2022 and 2023 is higher, however, based on our expectation for stronger GDP growth in EM economies, following the DM's outperformance this year, on the back of wider global vaccine distribution year-end (Table 1). Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) OPEC 2.0's Production Strategy In Focus OPEC 2.0's Production Strategy In Focus Our supply-demand estimates continue to point to a balanced market this year and into 2022-23 (Chart 6). Given our expectation OPEC 2.0's production-management strategy will remain effective, we expect inventories to continue to draw (Chart 7). Chart 6Markets Remained Balanced Markets Remained Balanced Markets Remained Balanced Chart 7Inventories Continue To Draw Inventories Continue To Draw Inventories Continue To Draw CAPEX Cuts Bite In 2023 In 2023, we are expecting Brent to end the year closer to $80/bbl than not, which will put prices outside the current range we believe OPEC 2.0 is managing its production around (Chart 8). We have noted in the past continued weakness in capex over the 2015-2022 period threatens to leave the global market exposed to higher prices (Chart 9). Over time, a reluctance to invest in oil and gas exploration and production prices in 2024 and beyond could begin to take off as demand – which does not have to grow more than 1% p.a. – continues to expand and supply remains flat or declines. Chart 8By 2023 Brent Trades to /bbl By 2023 Brent Trades to $80/bbl By 2023 Brent Trades to $80/bbl Chart 9Low Capex Likely Results In Higher Prices After 2023 OPEC 2.0's Production Strategy In Focus OPEC 2.0's Production Strategy In Focus Bottom Line: We are raising our 2021 forecast back to an average of $63/bbl, and our forecasts for 2022 and 2023 to $75 and $78/bbl. We expect DM demand to lead the recovery this year, and for EM to take over next year, and resume its role as the growth engine for oil demand. Longer term, parsimonious capex allocations likely result in tighter supply meeting slowly growing demand. At present, markets appear to be placing a large bet on the buildout of renewable electricity generation and electric vehicles (EVs). If this does not occur along the trajectory of rapid expansion apparently being priced by markets – i.e., the demand for oil continues to expand, however slowly – oil prices likely would push through $80/bbl in 2024 and beyond.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish The Colonial Pipeline outage pushed average retail gasoline prices in the US to $3.03/gal earlier this week, according to the EIA. This was the highest level for regular-grade gasoline in the US since 27 October 2014. According to reuters.com, the cyberattack that shut down the 5,500-mile pipeline was the most disruptive on record, shutting down thousands of retail service stations in the US southeast. Millions of barrels of refined products – gasoline, diesel and jet fuel – were unable to flow between the US Gulf and the NY Harbor because of the attack, which was launched 7 May 2021 (Chart 10). While most of the system is up and running, problems with the pipeline's scheduling system earlier this week prevented a return to full operation. Base Metals: Bullish Spot copper prices remained on either side of $4.55/lb (~ $10,000/MT) by mid-week following a dip from the $4.80/lb level (Chart 11). We remain bullish copper, particularly as political risk in Chile rises going into a constitutional convention. According to press reports, the country's constitution will be re-written, a process that likely will pave the way for higher taxes and royalties on copper producers.1 In addition, unions in BHP mines rejected a proposed labor agreement, with close to 100% of members voting to strike. In Peru, a socialist presidential candidate is campaigning on a platform to raise taxes and royalties. Precious Metals: Bullish According to the World Platinum Investment Council, platinum is expected to run a deficit for the third consecutive year in 2021, which will amount to 158k oz, on the back of strong demand. Refined production is projected to increase this year, with South Africa driving this growth as mines return to full operational capacity after COVID-19 related shutdowns. Automotive demand is leading the charge in higher metal consumption, as car makers switch out more expensive palladium for platinum to make autocatalysts in internal-combustion vehicles. Ags/Softs: Neutral Corn prices continued to be better-offered following last week's WASDE report, which contained the department's first look at the 2021-22 crop year. Corn production is expected to be up close to 6% over the 2020-21 crop year, at just under 15 billion bushels. On the week, corn prices are down ~ 15.3%. Chart 10 RBOB Gasoline at a High RBOB Gasoline at a High Chart 11 Political Risk in Chile and Peru Could Bolster Copper Prices Political Risk in Chile and Peru Could Bolster Copper Prices     Footnotes 1     Please see Copper price rises as Chile fuels long-term supply concerns published 18 May 2021 by mining.com. Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades Higher Inflation On The Way Higher Inflation On The Way

Highlights The epicenter of the new Middle East crisis is the Shia Crescent, which threatens global oil supply. However, the escalation of conflict in the Mediterranean is also relevant to global investors. The crises in Libya and the Eastern Mediterranean are escalating as President Erdogan makes a last attempt to benefit from his relationship with Trump before US elections in November. A breakup between Turkey and NATO is not our base case, but European sanctions against Turkey are likely. Turkish risk will rise. A revival in Libyan oil production would not be a meaningful risk to the recovery in oil markets. Stay strategically long Brent crude oil. Libya could become a “Black Swan” for market participants exposed to southern Europe, Turkey, and North Africa. We remain short our EM Strongman Currency Basket versus other emerging market currencies. Feature Dear Clients, This week we present to you a special report on Turkey by my colleague Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor, Geopolitical Strategy. Roukaya argues that President Erdogan is at a crossroads in which he will confront major military and economic constraints to his foreign policy adventurism. On Monday, July 27 you will receive a special report that I co-wrote with Anastasios Avgeriou, chief strategist of our US Equity Strategy. In this report we continue our analysis of the equity sector implications of the upcoming US election. Anastasios also provides analysis of two cyclical sectors that you may find of interest. On Friday, July 31 we will send you our regular monthly GeoRisk Update, which surveys our proprietary, market-based geopolitical risk indicators and what they imply for your portfolio. We trust you will enjoy these reports and look forward to your feedback. All very best, Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Chart 1Shia Crescent' Flailing Under Maximum Pressure And COVID-19 Shia Crescent' Flailing Under Maximum Pressure And COVID-19 Shia Crescent' Flailing Under Maximum Pressure And COVID-19 The Middle East is suffering a wave of instability after the COVID-19 crisis just as it did in the years after the 2008 financial crisis. The crises in Libya, Syria, and Yemen were never resolved and now new crises are emerging from Egypt and Turkey to Iran and Iraq. By contrast with the “Arab Spring” of 2011, the epicenter of the political earthquake this time around is likely to be the “Shia Crescent,” i.e. Iran, Iraq, eastern Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Lebanon. The US policy of maximum pressure on Iran, which is intensifying in the lead-up to the US election, has weakened Iran and its sphere of influence (Chart 1). Chart 2Dominant Arab States Also Face Struggles Erdogan’s Neo-Ottoman Bid Hits Constraints Erdogan’s Neo-Ottoman Bid Hits Constraints Meanwhile the pandemic and collapse in oil prices have destabilized the predominantly Arab states (Chart 2). Authoritarian regimes like Egypt and Saudi Arabia that consolidated power after the Arab Spring are more stable than they were but still vulnerable to external and internal forces. These cyclical developments are occurring against the backdrop of structural changes like the US’s energy independence and strategic pivot to Asia, which have created a power vacuum in the Middle East. The pivot to Asia is rooted in US grand strategy and has proceeded across partisan administrations, so it will continue. Indeed US-China tensions are escalating rapidly in 2020 despite the financial market’s lack of interest. Turkey and Russia are scrambling to take advantage of the US’s withdrawal and gain greater influence through regional proxy wars. This year has seen a marked escalation of their involvement in Libya, where the war is re-escalating and drawing in Egypt, Europe, and Gulf Arabs. At minimum a Mediterranean conflict could affect oil prices as well as Turkish, Russian, and other regional financial assets. At maximum it could affect European assets, which are exposed to geopolitical risk in Turkey and North Africa. The Shia Crescent is the crisis’s epicenter, but Libya is also investment relevant. Bottom Line: The epicenter of the new Middle East crisis is the Shia Crescent, which threatens global oil supply. However, the escalation of conflict in the Mediterranean is also relevant to global investors, primarily through its potential to impact European assets. Re-Escalation In Libya The Libyan crisis has been escalating since the beginning of the year and is on the verge of turning into a major multilateral conflict. The risk now is that Egypt, another regional power, will intervene in Libya against Turkey in a battle for North African hegemony (Map 1). Map 1Libya Could Become A "Black Swan" Event Erdogan’s Neo-Ottoman Bid Hits Constraints Erdogan’s Neo-Ottoman Bid Hits Constraints Several incidents since we outlined Egypt’s red lines on the Libyan conflict suggest that Cairo and Ankara will clash in Libya (Table 1). Table 1Egypt And Turkey Up The Ante In Libya Erdogan’s Neo-Ottoman Bid Hits Constraints Erdogan’s Neo-Ottoman Bid Hits Constraints While Egypt has declared Sirte and al-Jufra as red lines, threatening military intervention if crossed, Turkey is calling for the Libyan National Army’s (LNA) withdrawal from these regions as a precondition for a ceasefire (Map 2). Egypt is allied with General Khalifa Haftar’s Libyan National Army, which is based in Benghazi and holds parliament in Tobruk. Map 2Libya’s Battlefront Is Closing In On The Oil Crescent Erdogan’s Neo-Ottoman Bid Hits Constraints Erdogan’s Neo-Ottoman Bid Hits Constraints The next move is now in Turkey’s hands. The escalation depends on whether it insists on moving forward toward Egypt’s red line. Turkey’s recent movements do not suggest it is backing down. True on July 21, and again on July 22, top officials from Turkey’s foreign ministry referred to a political solution as being the only solution in Libya. However, these statements were made while Turkey held diplomatic meetings with Niger and Malta that could be aimed at establishing airbases there.1 At its core, the conflict in Libya is a clash between the two dominant geopolitical forces in the Middle East. On the one hand, Turkey and Qatar are independent economic forces to Saudi Arabia and supporters of political Islam. On the other hand, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt form an economic bloc and support Saudi religious authority and political authoritarianism. Bottom Line: The crisis in Libya is heading toward an Egypt-Turkey confrontation. Be ready for an escalation. Egypt Has More To Lose Than Turkey In Libya Both Egypt and Turkey are nearing a point of no return in Libya. A last-minute change of heart from either side would be increasingly more humiliating, both domestically and regionally. Chart 3Defeat In Libya Would Accelerate Erdogan’s Decline Erdogan’s Neo-Ottoman Bid Hits Constraints Erdogan’s Neo-Ottoman Bid Hits Constraints While Egypt’s geographic proximity to Libya makes it more interested in what goes on there and will give it a home advantage in any military confrontation, Egypt’s military may be overstretched as it is also at risk of conflict with Ethiopia over water resources.2 For Egypt, a victory would resuscitate its position as a regional power, bringing about a new era of greater Egyptian regional leadership. It would silence domestic skeptics who argue Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi’s rule is based on the illegitimate ousting of Egypt’s only democratically elected leader. It would squash any prospect of a revival of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and validate authoritarian rulers in the region. It could also annul the recent Libya-Turkey maritime demarcation agreement – a positive for Egypt’s natural gas ambitions. A loss would be a wake-up call for Egypt’s military, which has been spending scarce funds on costly equipment. It may also result in a change in leadership in Egypt or at the very least weaken al-Sisi’s domestic power and Egypt’s regional clout. The regime would persist over the short and medium term, but it would suffer a loss of legitimacy and the underground domestic opposition would intensify, creating a long-term threat. A complete defeat of LNA forces would pose a major security risk. Haftar’s LNA acts as a buffer between Egypt and unfriendly militias in Western Libya. Turkey does not have a vital national strategic interest in Libya and therefore the constraint pushing against on a protracted conflict is stronger than it is for Egypt. Given that Turkey is a democracy, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has more to lose in the case of a military defeat. It would accelerate the decline in his popular support and that of his Justice and Development Party (AKP) (Chart 3). A conflict with Egypt is therefore a gratuitous gamble. However, victory would vindicate Erdogan’s efforts to create a strongman regime and revive memories of the great Ottoman empire.3 Such an accomplishment could mark a major turning point for Erdogan. His domestic blunders would be forgiven and he would be able to claim that he is one of the great leaders of Turkey. Given that Turkey lacks strategic necessity in Libya, and a defeat could dislodge Erdogan in 2023, one should expect Turkey not to cross Egypt’s red lines. However, Erdogan’s rule has been characterized by hubris, nationalism, and foreign assertiveness to distract from domestic economic mismanagement. Therefore we cannot have a high conviction that Turkey will bow to its political and military constraints. The risk of a large conflict is underrated. Bottom Line: Egypt has greater national interests at stake in Libya than Turkey. The implication is that Turkey should recognize Egyptian red lines. However, Turkey’s decision to intervene in Libya suggests that Erdogan could overreach. Libya could become a “Black Swan” for market participants exposed to southern Europe, Turkey, and North Africa. Will Turkey Break With NATO? Since signing the maritime and military cooperation agreements with Libya on November 27, Turkey has raised its stakes in Libya. Ankara has sent more armed drones, surface-to-air missile defense systems, naval frigates, a hundred officers, and up to 3,800 Syrian fighters. It has rolled back all of the strategic gains that the Libyan National Army made in 2019. The timing of the recent escalation is significant. The US election cycle offers Erdogan a chance to increase Turkey’s foreign assertiveness with minimal US retaliation. US-Turkish relations have been icy for years. Turkey is an ascendant regional power that is pursuing an increasingly independent national policy, while the US is no longer as dominant of a global hegemonic power capable of enforcing discipline among minor allies. The US alliance with the Kurds in Syria and Iraq has alienated Turkey. The 2016 Turkish coup attempt also increased the level of distrust between the two states. However, President Trump’s personal and political affinity for President Erdogan has resulted in a permissive policy toward Turkey. Trump seeks to distance the US from conflicts in Syria and Libya inherited from his predecessor. He has little commitment to the Kurds. More broadly he has embraced geopolitical multipolarity and avoided telling Erdogan what to do. The Trump administration has not retaliated against Turkey for purchasing Russia’s S400 missile defense system or for pursuing expansive maritime-territorial claims near Cyprus. Even though the Turkish arms purchase makes it eligible for sanctions under the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA), the Trump administration has yet to impose sanctions. Senator Lindsey Graham, who is close to the Trump administration, suggested in July 2019 that sanctions could be avoided if Turkey did not activate the system.4 Turkey, for its part, has yet to activate the system three months after the April target date for activation. Turkey blames the delay on COVID-19. With regard to Libya, the Trump administration has remained largely on the sidelines. It has promised to reduce American commitment to overseas conflicts and has criticized the Obama administration’s intervention in Libya in 2011 to bail out the European allies. Officially the US is aligned with Fayez al-Sarraj’s UN-backed Government of National Accord (GNA), but so far its role has been minimal, refraining from providing any military support. Moreover, Washington’s key allies in the region – Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, even France – support the Libyan National Army. Libya could become a “Black Swan” event. It is Haftar’s other main backer – Russia – that would present an incentive for greater American involvement. The US African Command reports that two thousand Russian mercenaries from the Kremlin-backed Wagner Group have fought in Libya. The US also reported in June that at least 14 MiG29 and Su-24 Russian warplanes were sent to Libya via Syria, believed to be located in the al-Jufra airbase. Moreover, the US State Department has accused Russia of printing billions of fake Libyan dinars to fund Haftar’s forces.5 The Trump administration has been permissive toward Russia as well as Turkey, letting them work out deals with each other, but US electoral politics could prompt Trump to make shows of strength against Russia to fend off criticism. Thus the months in the lead up to the US elections offer the Turkish leader what may be a closing opportunity to increase the country’s foreign assertiveness with minimal US retribution. If Trump loses, Erdogan may face a less sympathetic Washington. By contrast France, also a NATO ally, has taken a stronger position against Ankara over its involvement in Libya. Relations with other eastern Mediterranean countries have also been rocky due to Turkey’s exclusion from gas deals in the region and drilling in disputed waters near Cyprus and Greece. France has a commercial interest in Libya’s oil industry and backs Haftar’s Libyan National Army to some extent.6 Citing aggressive behavior by Turkish warships after an encounter in the Mediterranean, France suspended its involvement in NATO’s Operation Sea Guardian on July 1.7 France has also demanded EU sanctions against Turkey – both for its drilling activities around Cyprus as well as for its role in Libya.8 Still, Europeans have little appetite for direct intervention in Libya. The leaders of France, Italy and Germany have threatened sanctions against foreign states that violate the arms embargo in Libya. This warning comes after EU foreign ministers agreed to discuss the possibility of another set of sanctions against Turkey in their August meeting if Turkey persists in converting the Hagia Sophia from a museum to a mosque. Despite the fracturing within NATO, the alliance will not break up. Turkey’s geographic proximity to Russia, large number of troops, and military strength make it an essential member of the defense treaty (Chart 4). Chart 4NATO Will Not Break With Turkey Erdogan’s Neo-Ottoman Bid Hits Constraints Erdogan’s Neo-Ottoman Bid Hits Constraints Instead, the Europeans will retaliate against Erdogan’s foreign adventurism through sanctions, while maintaining the NATO alliance. This acts as a cyclical rebuke without damaging the secular relationship. Europe will use sanctions to retaliate against Turkey’s provocations. The Europeans will be particularly rattled if Turkey succeeds in its North African endeavor and amasses significant regional power as a result. Victory in Libya would make Turkey the gatekeeper to two major migrant entry points to the European continent, providing Ankara with leverage in its negotiations with Europe (Chart 5). It would also increase the likelihood that Turkey increases its assertive behavior in the Eastern Mediterranean, where Israel, Egypt, Greece, Cyprus, and Italy are seeking to develop a natural gas hub. Chart 5Turkish Victory In Libya Would Rattle Europe Erdogan’s Neo-Ottoman Bid Hits Constraints Erdogan’s Neo-Ottoman Bid Hits Constraints Although Erdogan shows no signs of backing down, constraints suggest that Erdogan may pull back from being perceived as overly provocative. The Turkish economy is highly dependent on Europe in trade and capital flows (Chart 6). Thus unlike American sanctions, which have little bearing on the Turkish economy short of radical financial measures, European sanctions suppress any chance of an economic recovery. Chart 6European Sanctions Would Reverse Turkey's Recovery European Sanctions Would Reverse Turkey's Recovery European Sanctions Would Reverse Turkey's Recovery Chart 7Erdogan Risks Popularity By Overstepping In Libya And East Med Erdogan’s Neo-Ottoman Bid Hits Constraints Erdogan’s Neo-Ottoman Bid Hits Constraints Turkey’s frail economy and crackdown on opposition parties could weigh on Erdogan’s approval, which is losing its COVID-induced bounce (Chart 7). Thus, as in the case of Egypt, Erdogan should recognize these constraints and reduce his foreign assertiveness. If he does not, then he will hit up against material constraints that will harm the Turkish economy. Bottom Line: The Libyan crisis is escalating as Erdogan makes a last attempt to benefit from his relationship with Trump before US elections in November. Washington’s detached stance in Libya highlights that its foreign policy priorities lie elsewhere – in Asia and Iran. Meanwhile, Europe is divided over Libya. A breakup between Turkey and NATO is not our base case, but new European sanctions against Turkey are not unlikely. A Turkish victory in Libya would lead to a significant escalation in tensions between Turkey and the West. Investment Implications Turkish geopolitical risk is set to rise in the lead up to the November US elections as Turkey becomes increasingly embroiled in foreign conflicts – in Libya, Syria, Iraq, and most recently in the Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict (Chart 8). Ankara’s more provocative stances raise the risk of sanctions from the US and more significantly from the EU. This would hurt Turkish risk assets at a time of already heightened vulnerability. If Turkey manages to secure a victory in Libya, it would benefit economically from construction and energy contracts there. However, it would also result in a significant uptick in geopolitical tensions in the Middle East as the West and the West’s regional allies will be disturbed by Ankara’s expanding influence. Stay short our EM Strongman Currency Basket composed of the Turkish lira, Philippine peso, and Brazilian real versus other emerging market currencies. Even though the lira is already cheap against the US dollar, it faces more downside due to the risks highlighted in this report and the massive growth in money supply in Turkey. Similarly, the prospect of a military confrontation will raise the equity risk premium priced in Egyptian stocks. Egypt will continue underperforming emerging markets as long as it remains invested in an unsettled conflict in Libya (Chart 9). Chart 8Turkish Risk Will Rise Turkish Risk Will Rise Turkish Risk Will Rise Libyan oil exports are unlikely to stage a major revival anytime soon (Chart 10). Although the Libyan National Oil Company lifted force majeure on July 10, Haftar’s Libyan National Army reintroduced the blockade a day later. Clashes are also occurring near oil facilities in the Brega region where Syrian, Sudanese, and Russian Wagner Group mercenaries currently have a presence. Chart 9Egyptian Risk Assets Will Underperform Egyptian Risk Assets Will Underperform Egyptian Risk Assets Will Underperform Chart 10Libyan Oil Handicapped By Haftar’s Blockade Erdogan’s Neo-Ottoman Bid Hits Constraints Erdogan’s Neo-Ottoman Bid Hits Constraints Chart 11Stay Bullish Euro Over The Long Run Stay Bullish Euro Over The Long Run Stay Bullish Euro Over The Long Run Even in the best-case scenario, in which force majeure is promptly lifted, the blockade damaged both the reservoirs and oil and gas infrastructure, preventing a resurgence of exports to pre-January levels. The Libyan National Oil Company warned that unless oil production restarts immediately, output will average 650,000 barrels per day in 2022. This is significantly less than the over 1 million barrels per day just prior to the blockade, and the 2.1 million barrels per day Libya had planned to produce by 2024. In any case these figures pale in comparison to the production curtailments currently in place by OPEC 2.0, which are set to decrease to 8.3 million barrels per day beginning in August from 9.6 million barrels per day now. Given OPEC 2.0’s demonstrated commitment to production discipline, a revival in Libyan oil production is not a meaningful risk to the recovery in oil markets. We remain strategically long Brent crude oil, which is up 78% since inception in March. This trade could experience near-term volatility due to any hiccups in global economic stimulus or risk-off events from geopolitical risks. But over a 12-month time frame we expect oil prices to rise higher. BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy strategists expect Brent prices to average $44/bbl in 2H2020, and $65/bbl in 2021. The recent rise in the euro is rooted in global macro and structural factors but a major Mediterranean crisis and/or other geopolitical risks we have highlighted surrounding the US election cycle could create headwinds in the short term. Over the long run we are bullish euro (Chart 11).   Roukaya Ibrahim Editor/Strategist Geopolitical Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 In Niger, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu met with his Nigerien counterpart and stated the two states’ willingness to boost bilateral relations in agriculture, mining, energy, industry, and trade. A day earlier, Turkey and Qatar’s defense ministers met with Libya’s minister of interior in Ankara to discuss the situation in Libya. And on July 20, a trilateral meeting was held between Turkey’s defense minister, Libya’s interior minister, and Malta’s minister of home affairs and national security. The inclusion of Malta – located just north of Libya in the Mediterranean – is perplexing. The three discussed defense cooperation and efforts toward regional stability and peace. These recent meetings could suggest that Turkey is negotiating agreements to fortify its strategic approaches to Libya. This could involve greenlighting airbases in Niger and Malta in exchange for economic support and Qatari funding. 2 The latest developments suggest that the Egypt-Ethiopia conflict is de-escalating. On July 21, Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed tweeted that Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan had reached a “common understanding on continuing technical discussions on filling.” But Ethiopia will have an opportunity if Egypt becomes embroiled in Libya. 3 The Turks ruled Tripolitania from the mid-1500s until Italy’s 1912 victory in the Italo-Turkish War. Surveys conducted by Metropoll reveal that the share of Turks with a positive perception of Turkey’s active role in Libya shot up to 58% in June from 35% in January. 4 Senate Majority Whip John Thune has even proposed using the US Army’s missile procurement account to buy the Russian missiles from Turkey, thus reducing tensions between the two NATO allies. This is unlikely to occur because it would look politically weak in the US, while Turkey would face Russian pressure. The US suspended Turkey from the F35 Joint Strike Fighter program, banning it from purchasing F35s, and removing it from the aircraft’s production program. US Secretary of Defense Mark Esper stated that the US would only consider allowing Turkey back into the F35 Joint Strike Program if the Russian defense system were moved out of the country. The Turkish purchase of the Russian defense system was partly driven by the need to work with Russia and partly driven by Erdogan’s desire to reduce the risk of another coup attempt. Ankara was indefensible against the Turkish Air Force’s F-16s during the 2016 coup attempt since its military relies heavily on US built missile defense. 5 Moscow has denied all allegations of involvement in Libya. 6 US-made javelin missiles purchased by France were found at the pro-Haftar base in Gharyan in June last year, raising suspicion that France was backing Haftar’s offensives. 7 On June 10, French frigate Courbet approached a Tanzanian-flagged ship heading to Libya in suspicion that it was violating the UN arms embargo. France accused three Turkish vessels that were escorting the Tanzanian vessel of harassment by targeting the Courbet’s fire control radars. Turkey denied harassing the Courbet and maintains that the Tanzanian vessel was transporting humanitarian aid to Libya. A NATO investigation into the incident was inconclusive. 8 The EU agreed to impose sanctions on two Turkish oil company officials in February in protest against Turkish drilling activity in the Eastern Mediterranean. However these sanctions are mostly just political symbolism.

  Highlights In the short run, extreme policy uncertainty is problematic for risk assets. In the long run, gargantuan fiscal and monetary stimulus continues to support cyclical trades. Equity volatility always increases in the lead-up to US presidential elections. Trump has a 35% chance of reelection. The US-China trade deal is intact for now but the risk of a strategic crisis or tariffs is about 40%. Our Turkish GeoRisk Indicator is lower than it should be based on Turkey’s regional escapades. Feature US equities fell back by 2.6% on June 24 as investors took notice of rising near-term risks to the rally. With gargantuan global monetary and fiscal stimulus, we expect the global stock-to-bond ratio to rise over the long run (Chart 1). However, we still see downside risks prevailing in the near term related to the pandemic, US politics, geopolitics, and the rollout of additional stimulus this summer. Chart 1Risk-On Phase Continues - But Risks Mounting Risk-On Phase Continues - But Risks Mounting Risk-On Phase Continues - But Risks Mounting Chart 2Policy Uncertainty Hitting Extremes Policy Uncertainty Hitting Extremes Policy Uncertainty Hitting Extremes Global economic policy uncertainty is skyrocketing – particularly due to the epic the November 3 US election showdown. Yet Chinese policy uncertainty remains elevated and will rise higher given that the pandemic epicenter now faces an unprecedented challenge to its economic and political order. China’s economic instability will increase emerging market policy uncertainty (Chart 2). Only Europe is seeing political risk fall, yet Trump’s threats of tariffs against Europe this week highlight that he will resort to protectionism if his approval rating does not benefit from stock market gains, which is currently the case. The COVID-19 outbreak is accelerating in the US in the wake of economic reopening and insufficient public adherence to health precautions and distancing measures. The divergence with Europe is stark (Chart 3). Authorities will struggle to institute sweeping lockdowns again, but some states are tightening restrictions on the margin and this will grow. Chart 3US COVID-19 Outbreak Volatility And Mediterranean Quarrels (GeoRisk Update) Volatility And Mediterranean Quarrels (GeoRisk Update) The divergence between daily new infection cases and new deaths in the US, as well as countries as disparate as Sweden and Iran, is not entirely reassuring. The US is effectively following Sweden’s “light touch” model. Ultimately COVID is not much of a risk if deaths are minimized – but tighter social restrictions will frighten the markets regardless (Chart 4). President Trump’s election chances have fallen under the weight of the pandemic – followed by social unrest and controversy over race relations. But net approval on handling the economy is holding up well enough (Chart 5). Chart 4Divergence In New Cases Versus New Deaths Volatility And Mediterranean Quarrels (GeoRisk Update) Volatility And Mediterranean Quarrels (GeoRisk Update) Chart 5Trump’s Lifeline Is The Economy Volatility And Mediterranean Quarrels (GeoRisk Update) Volatility And Mediterranean Quarrels (GeoRisk Update) Our subjective 35% odds of reelection still seem appropriate for now – but we will upgrade Trump if the financial and economic rebound is sustained while his polling improves. His approval should pick up in the face of a collapse of law and order, not to mention left-wing anarchists removing or vandalizing historical monuments to America’s Founding Fathers and some great public figures who had nothing to do with the Confederacy in the Civil War. Equity volatility will increase ahead of the US election. Chart 6Volatility Always Rises Before US Elections Volatility Always Rises Before US Elections Volatility Always Rises Before US Elections Equity volatility always increases in the lead up to modern American elections (Chart 6) and this year’s extreme polarization, high unemployment, and precarious geopolitical environment suggest that negative surprises could be worse than usual, notwithstanding the tsunami of stimulus. So far this year the S&P 500 is tracing along the lower end of its historical performance during presidential election years. This is consistent with a change of government in November, unless it continues to power upward over the next four months – typically a change of ruling party requires a technical correction on the year. Our US Equity Strategist, Anastasios Avgeriou, also expects the market to begin reacting to political risk – and he precisely timed the market’s peak and trough over the past year (Chart 7). We suspect that the positive correlation between the S&P and the Democratic Party’s odds of a full sweep of government is spurious. The reason the S&P has recovered is because of the economic snapback from the lockdowns and the global stimulus. The reason the odds of a Blue Wave election have surged is because the pandemic and recession decimated Trump and the Republicans. Going forward, the market needs to do more to discount a Democratic sweep. At 35%, this scenario is underrated in Chart 8, which considers all possible presidential and congressional combinations. Standalone bets put the odds of a Blue Wave at slightly above 50%. We have always argued that the party that wins the White House in 2020 is highly likely to take the Senate. Chart 7Market At Risk Of Election Cycle Market At Risk Of Election Cycle Market At Risk Of Election Cycle Chart 8Market Will Soon Worry About 'Blue Wave' Market Will Soon Worry About 'Blue Wave' Market Will Soon Worry About 'Blue Wave' True, the US is monetizing debt and this will push risk assets higher regardless over the long run. But if former Vice President Joe Biden wins the presidency, he will create a negative regulatory shock for American businesses, and if his party takes the Senate, then corporate taxes, capital gains taxes, federal minimum wages, liability insurance, and the cost of carbon (implicitly or explicitly) will all rise. The market must also reckon with the possibility that Trump is reelected or that he becomes firmly established as a “lame duck” and thus takes desperate measures prior to the election. His threat to impose tariffs on Europe this week underscores our point that if Trump’s approval rating stays low, despite a rising stock market, then the temptation to spend financial capital in pursuit of political capital will rise. This will involve a hard line on immigration and trade. Bottom Line: Tactically, there is more downside. Strategically, we remain pro-cyclical. Stimulus Hiccups This Summer One reason we have urged investors to buy insurance against downside risks this month is because of hurdles in rolling out the next round of fiscal stimulus. The four key drivers of the global growth rebound are liquidity, fiscal easing (Chart 9), an enthusiastic private sector response, and the large cushion of household wealth prior to the crisis. This is according to Mathieu Savary – author of our flagship Bank Credit Analyst report. Mathieu argues that it will be harder for investors to overlook policy uncertainty after the stimulus slows, i.e. the second derivative of liquidity turns negative. Chart 9Gargantuan Fiscal Stimulus Volatility And Mediterranean Quarrels (GeoRisk Update) Volatility And Mediterranean Quarrels (GeoRisk Update) The massive increase in budget deficits and the quick recovery in activity amid reopening have reduced politicians’ sense of urgency. We fear that the stock market will have to put more pressure on lawmakers to force them to provide more largesse. Ultimately they will do so – but if they delay, and if delay looks like it is turning into botching the job, then markets will temporarily panic. Why are we confident stimulus will prevail? In the United States, fiscal bills have flown through Congress despite record polarization. Democrats cannot afford to obstruct the stimulus just to hurt the economy and the president’s reelection chances. Instead they have gone hog wild – promoting massive spending across the board to demonstrate their fundamental proposition that government can play a larger and more positive role in Americans’ lives. Their latest proposal is worth $3 trillion, plus an infrastructure bill that nominally amounts to $500 billion over five years. President Trump, for his part, was always fiscally profligate and now wants $2 trillion in stimulus to fuel the economic recovery, thus increasing his chances of reelection as voters grow more optimistic in the second half of the year. He also wants $1 trillion in new infrastructure spending over five years. Yet Republican Senators are dragging their feet and offering only a $1 trillion package. In the end they will adopt Trump’s position because if they do not hang together, they will all hang separately in November. The debate will center on whether the extra $600 in monthly unemployment benefits will be continued (at a cost of $276bn in the previous Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act). Republicans want to tie benefits to returning to work, since this generous subsidy created perverse incentives and made it more economical for many to stay on the dole. There will also be a debate over whether to issue another round of direct cash checks to citizens ($290bn in the CARES Act). Republicans want to prioritize payroll tax cuts, again focusing on reducing unemployment (Chart 10). Chart 10US Fiscal Stimulus Breakdown Volatility And Mediterranean Quarrels (GeoRisk Update) Volatility And Mediterranean Quarrels (GeoRisk Update) Our US bond strategist, Ryan Swift, has shown that the cash handouts present a substantial fiscal “cliff.” Without the original one-time stimulus checks, real personal income would have fallen 5% since February, instead of rising 9% (Chart 11). If Republicans refuse to issue a new round of checks, yet the extra unemployment benefits stay, then over $1 trillion in income will be needed to fill the gap so that overall personal income will end up flat since February. In other words, an ~8% increase in income less transfers from current levels is necessary to prevent overall personal income from falling below its February level. China and the EU will eventually provide more largesse. Republican Senators will capitulate, but the process could be rocky and the market should see volatility this summer. China may also be forced to provide more stimulus in late July at its mid-year Politburo meeting – any lack of dovishness at that meeting will disappoint investors. European talks on the Next Generation recovery fund could also see delays (though they are progressing well so far). Brexit trade deal negotiations pose a near-term risk. There is also a non-negligible chance that the German Constitutional Court will raise further obstructions with the European Central Bank’s quantitative easing programs on August 5. European risks are manageable on the whole, but the market is not discounting much (Chart 12). Chart 11Will Congress Takeaway The Money Tree? Will Congress Takeaway The Money Tree? Will Congress Takeaway The Money Tree? Bottom Line: We expect the S&P 500 to trade in a range between 2800 and 3200 points during this period of limbo in which risks over pandemic response and political risks will come to the fore while the market awaits new stimulus measures, which may not be perfectly timely. Chart 12European Risks Are Getting Priced European Risks Are Getting Priced European Risks Are Getting Priced Has The Phase One China Deal Failed Yet? President Trump’s threat this week to slap Europe with tariffs, if it imposes travel restrictions on the US over the coronavirus, points to the dynamic we have highlighted on the more consequential issue of whether Trump hikes broad-based tariffs on China, and/or nullifies the “Phase One” trade deal. Our sense is that if Trump is doing extremely poorly, or extremely well, in terms of opinion polls and the stock market, then the roughly 40% odds of sweeping punitive measures of some kind will go up (Diagram 1). Cumulatively we see the chance of a major tariff hike at 40%. Diagram 1Decision Tree: Risk Of Significant Trump Punitive Measures On China In 2020 Volatility And Mediterranean Quarrels (GeoRisk Update) Volatility And Mediterranean Quarrels (GeoRisk Update) White House trade czar Peter Navarro’s comments earlier this week, suggesting that the Phase One trade deal was already over, prompted Trump to tweet that he still fully supports the deal. Negotiations between Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Chinese Politburo member Yang Jiechi also nominally kept the lid on tensions. However, China may need to depreciate the renminbi to ease deflationary pressures on its economy – and this would provoke Trump to retaliate (Chart 13). Chart 13Chinese Depreciation Would Provoke Trump Chinese Depreciation Would Provoke Trump Chinese Depreciation Would Provoke Trump We have always argued against the durability of the Phase One trade deal. Investors should plan for it to fall apart. Judging by our China GeoRisk Indicator, investors are putting in a higher risk premium into Chinese equities (Chart 14). They are also doing so with Korean equities, which are ultimately connected with US-China tensions. Only Taiwan is pricing zero political risk, which is undeserved and explains why we are short Taiwanese equities. After China’s imposition of a controversial national security law in Hong Kong and America’s decision to prepare retaliatory sanctions, reports emerged that Chinese authorities ordered state-owned agricultural traders to halt imports of soybean and pork – and potentially corn and cotton. These reports were swiftly followed by others that highlighted that state-owned Chinese firms purchased at least three cargoes of US soybeans on June 1, in spite of China’s decision to stop imports.1 Thus this aspect of the deal has not yet collapsed. But we would emphasize that the constraints against a failure of the deal are not prohibitive this year. The $200 billion worth of additional Chinese imports over 2020-2021 promised in the deal included $32 billion worth of additional US farm purchases – with at least $12.5 billion in 2020 and $19.5 billion in 2021 over 2017 imports of $24 billion. However, to date, US agricultural exports to China suggest that China may not even meet 2017 levels (Chart 15). Chart 14GeoRisk Indicators Show Rising Risk GeoRisk Indicators Show Rising Risk GeoRisk Indicators Show Rising Risk Chart 15Trade Deal Durability Still Shaky Volatility And Mediterranean Quarrels (GeoRisk Update) Volatility And Mediterranean Quarrels (GeoRisk Update) Soybeans account for roughly 60% of US agricultural exports to China. While Chinese imports are up so far this year relative to 2019, they remain well below pre-trade war levels. Although lower hog herds on the back of the African Swine Flu and disruptions caused by COVID-19 may be blamed, they are not the only cause of subdued purchases. The share of Chinese soybean imports coming from the US is also still below pre-trade war levels (Chart 16). Chart 16China Still Substituting Away From US Volatility And Mediterranean Quarrels (GeoRisk Update) Volatility And Mediterranean Quarrels (GeoRisk Update) New Chinese regulation requiring documents assuring food shipments to China are COVID-19 free adds another hurdle – China already banned poultry imports from Tyson Foods Inc. plants. Although the US’s share of China’s pork imports has picked up significantly, it will not go far toward meeting the trade deal requirements. China’s pork purchases from the US were valued at $0.3 billion in 2017, while soybean imports came in at $14 billion. Bottom Line: Trump’s only lifeline at the moment is the economy which pushes against canceling the US-China deal. But if he becomes a lame duck – or if exogenous factors humiliate him – then all bets are off. The passage of massive stimulus in the US and China removes economic constraints to conflict. Will Erdogan Overstep In Libya? We have long been bearish on Turkey relative to other emerging markets due to President Tayyip Erdogan’s populist policies, which erode monetary and fiscal responsibility and governance. Turkey’s intervention in Libya has marked a turning point in the Libyan civil war. The offensive to seize Tripoli on the part of General Khalifa Haftar of the Tobruk-based Libyan National Army (LNA) has been met with defeat (Map 1). Map 1Libya’s Battlefront Is Closing In On The Oil Crescent Volatility And Mediterranean Quarrels (GeoRisk Update) Volatility And Mediterranean Quarrels (GeoRisk Update) Foreign backing has enabled the conflict. Egypt, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Russia are the Libyan National Army’s main supporters, while Turkey and Qatar support Prime Minister Fayez al-Sarraj of the UN recognized Government of National Accord (GNA). The GNA’s successes this year can be credited to Turkey, which ramped up its intervention in Libya, even as oil prices collapsed, hurting Haftar and his supporters. Now the battlefront has shifted to Sirte and the al-Jufra airbase – the largest in Libya – and is closing in on the eastern oil-producing crescent, which contains over 60% of Libya’s oil. The victor in Sirte will also have control over the oil ports of Sidra, Ras Lanuf, Marsa al-Brega, and Zuwetina. With all parties eying the prize, the conflict is intensifying. Tripoli faces greater resistance as its forces move east. Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi’s June 6 ceasefire proposal, dubbed the Cairo Initiative, was rejected by al-Sarraj and Turkey. Instead, the Tripoli-based government wants to capture Sirte and al-Jufra before coming to the table. The recapturing of oil infrastructure would bring back some of Libya's lost output (Chart 17). Nevertheless, OPEC 2.0 is committed to keeping oil markets on track to rebalance, reducing the net effect of a Libyan production increase on global supplies. However, the GNA’s swift successes in the West may not be replicable as it moves further East, where support for Haftar is deeper and where the stakes are higher for both sides. This is demonstrated by the GNA’s failed attempt to capture Sirte on June 6. The battlefront is now at Egypt’s red line – GNA control of al-Jufra would pose a direct threat to Egypt and is thus considered a border in Egypt’s national security strategy. A push eastward risks escalating the conflict further by drawing in Egypt militarily. In a televised speech on June 20, al-Sisi threatened to deploy Egypt’s military if the red line is crossed. The statement was interpreted by Ankara as a declaration of war, raising the possibility that Egypt will go to war with Turkey in Libya. On paper, Egypt’s military is up to the task. Its recent upgrades have pulled up its ranking to ninth globally according to the Global Fire Power Index, surpassing Turkey’s strength in land and naval forces (Chart 18). However, while Turkey’s military has been active in other foreign conflicts such as in Syria, Egypt’s army is untested on foreign soil. Its most recent military encounter was the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Even after years of fighting, it has yet to declare victory against terrorist cells in the Sinai Peninsula. Thus Egypt’s rusty forces could face a protracted conflict in Libya rather than a swift victory. Chart 17GNA/Turkish Success Would Revive Libyan Oil Production Volatility And Mediterranean Quarrels (GeoRisk Update) Volatility And Mediterranean Quarrels (GeoRisk Update) Chart 18Egypt Is Militarily Capable … On Paper Volatility And Mediterranean Quarrels (GeoRisk Update) Volatility And Mediterranean Quarrels (GeoRisk Update) Other constraints may also deter al-Sisi from following through on his threat: Other Arab backers of the Libyan National Army – the UAE and Saudi Arabia – are unlikely to provide much support as their economies have been hammered by low oil prices. Egypt’s own economy is in poor shape to withstand a protracted war, with public debt on an unsustainable path. Not coincidentally, Egypt faces another potential military escalation to its south where it has been clashing with Ethiopia over the construction of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam on the Blue Nile. The dam will control Egypt’s water supply. The latest round of negotiations failed last week. While Cairo is hoping to obtain a bilateral agreement over the schedule for filling the dam, Addis Ababa has indicated that it will begin filling the dam in July regardless of whether an agreement is reached. Al-Sisi’s response to the deadlocked situation has been to request an intervention by the UN Security Council. However, as the July filling date nears, the Egypt-Ethiopia standoff risks escalating into war. For Egypt, there is an urgency to secure its future water supplies now before Ethiopia begins filling the dam. And while resolving the Libyan conflict is also a matter of national security – Egypt sees the Libyan National Army as a buffer between its porous western border and the extremist elements of the GNA – the risks are not as pressing. Thus a military intervention in Libya would distract Egypt from the Ethiopian conflict and risk drawing it into a war on two fronts. Moreover, Egypt generally, and al-Sisi in particular, risk losing credibility in case of a defeat. That said, Egypt has high stakes in Libya. A GNA defeat could annul the recent Libya-Turkey maritime demarcation agreement – a positive for Egypt’s gas ambitions – and eliminate the presence of unfriendly militias on its Western border. Thus, if the GNA or GNA-allied forces kill Egyptian citizens, or look as if they are capable of utterly defeating Haftar on his own turf, then it would be a prompt for intervention. Meanwhile Turkey’s regional influence and foreign policy assertiveness is growing – and at risk of over-extension. Erdogan’s interests in Libya stem from both economic and strategic objectives. In addition to benefitting from oil and gas rights and rebuilding contracts, Ankara’s strategy is in line with its pursuit of greater regional influence as set out in the Mavi Vatan, its current strategic doctrine.2 There are already rumors of Turkish plans to establish bases in the recently captured al-Watiya air base and Misrata naval base. This would be in addition to Ankara’s bases in Somalia and in norther Iraq. Erdogan is partly driven into these foreign policy adventures to distract from his domestic challenges and keep his support level elevated ahead of the 2023 general election (Chart 19). However, his growing assertiveness threatens to alienate European neighbors and NATO allies, which have so far played a minimal role in the Libyan conflict yet have important interests there. For now, the western powers seem focused on countering Russian intervention in Libya and the broader Mediterranean. Prime Minister al-Sarraj and General Stephen Townsend, head of US Africa Command (AFRICOM), met earlier this week and reiterated the need to return to the negotiating table and respect Libyan sovereignty and the UN arms embargo, with a focus on stemming Russian interference. However, Turkish relations with the West may take a turn for the worse if Erdogan oversteps. Turkey continues to threaten Europe with floods of refugees and immigrants if its demands are not met. This pressure will grow due to the COVID-19 crisis, which will ripple across the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia. Ankara also continues to press territorial claims in the Mediterranean Sea, ostensibly for energy development.3 Turkey has recently clashed with Greece and France on the seas. In sum, the Libyan conflict is intensifying as it moves into the oil crescent. The Turkey-backed GNA will face greater resistance in Sirte and al-Jufra, even assuming that Egypt does not follow through on its threat of intervening militarily. Erdogan’s foreign adventurism will provoke greater opposition in Libya and elsewhere among key western powers, Russia, and the Gulf Arab states. Bottom Line: The implication is that a deterioration in Turkey’s relationship with the West, military overextension, and continued domestic economic mismanagement will push up our Turkey GeoRisk Indicator, which is a way of saying that it will weigh on the currency (Chart 20). Chart 19Erdogan’s Fear Of Opposition Drives Bold Policy Volatility And Mediterranean Quarrels (GeoRisk Update) Volatility And Mediterranean Quarrels (GeoRisk Update) Chart 20Foreign And Domestic Factors Will Push Up Turkish Risk Foreign And Domestic Factors Will Push Up Turkish Risk Foreign And Domestic Factors Will Push Up Turkish Risk Stay short our “Strongman Basket” of emerging market currencies, including the Turkish lira. Investment Takeaways We entered the year by going strategically long EUR-USD, but closed the trade upon the COVID-19 lockdowns. We have resisted reinitiating it despite the 5% rally over the past three months due to extreme political risks this year, namely the US election and trade risks. Trump’s threat of tariffs on Europe this week highlights our concern. We will wait until the election outcome before reinstituting this trade, which should benefit over time as global and Chinese growth recover and the US dollar drops on yawning twin deficits. Throughout this year’s crisis we have periodically added cyclical and value plays to our strategic portfolio. We favor stocks over bonds and recommend going long global equities relative to the US 30-year treasuries. We are particularly interested in commodities that will benefit from ultra-reflationary policy and supply constraints due to insufficient capital spending. This month we recommend investors go long our BCA Rare Earth Basket, which features producers of rare earth elements and metals that can substitute for Chinese production (Chart 21). This trade reflects our macro outlook as well as our sense that the secular US-China strategic conflict will heat up before it cools down. Chart 21Position For An Escalation In The US-China Conflict Position For An Escalation In The US-China Conflict Position For An Escalation In The US-China Conflict   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Roukaya Ibrahim Editor/Strategist Geopolitical Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Karl Plume et al, "China buys U.S. soybeans after halt to U.S. purchases ordered: sources," Reuters, June 1, 2020. 2 The Mavi Vatan or “Blue Homeland Doctrine” was announced by Turkish Admiral Cem Gurdeniz in 2006 and sets targets to Turkish control in two main regions. The first region is the three seas surrounding it – the Mediterranean Sea, Aegean Sea, and Black Sea with the goal of securing energy supplies and supporting Turkey’s economic growth. The second region encompasses the Red Sea, Caspian Sea and Arabian Sea where Ankara has strategic objectives. 3 Ankara’s gas drilling activities off Cyprus have been a form of frequent provocation for Greece and Cyprus. Ankara has also stated that it may begin oil exploration under a controversial maritime deal with Libya as early as August. Section II: Appendix : GeoRisk Indicator China China: GeoRisk Indicator China: GeoRisk Indicator Russia Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Russia: GeoRisk Indicator UK UK: GeoRisk Indicator UK: GeoRisk Indicator Germany Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Germany: GeoRisk Indicator France France: GeoRisk Indicator France: GeoRisk Indicator Italy Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Canada Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Spain Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Korea Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights Geopolitical sparks in the Mediterranean point to the revival of realism or realpolitik in places where it has long been dormant. Europe is wary of Russia but will keep buying more of its natural gas. This will be a source of tension with the United States. Turkey is wary of Russia but will continue choosing pragmatic deals with Moscow that fly in the face of Europe and the United States. Turkey’s intervention in Libya is small but symbolic. Increases in foreign policy aggressiveness are negative signs for Turkey as they stem from domestic economic and political instability. Short Turkish currency, equities, and local government bonds. The recent increase in immigration into Europe will fuel another bout of populism if it goes unchecked. Feature “Multipolarity,” or competition among multiple powerful nations, is our overarching geopolitical theme at BCA Research. The collapse of the Soviet Union did not lead to the United States establishing a global empire, which might in theory have provided a stable and predictable trade and investment regime. The United States lashed out when attacked but otherwise became consumed by internal struggles: financial crisis and political polarization. Under two administrations the American public has demanded a reduced commitment to international affairs. Europe is even less likely to project power abroad – particularly after being thrown on the defensive by the Syrian and Libyan revolutions and ineffectual EU responses. Turkey’s aggressive foreign policy is a symptom of global multipolarity – which makes the world less predictable for investors. Emerging markets have risen in economic and military power relative to their developed counterparts. They demand a redistribution of global political power to set aright historical grievances and address immediate concerns, such as supply line insecurities, which increase alongside a rapidly growing economy. Multipolarity is apparent in Russia’s resurgence: pushing back on its borders with Europe and NATO, seeking a greater role in the Middle East and North Africa, interfering in US politics, and cementing its partnership with China. Multipolarity is equally evident when medium-sized powers – especially those that used to take orders from the US and Europe – seek to establish an independent foreign policy and throw off the shackles of the past. Turkey is just such a middle power. Strongman President Recep Tayyip Erdogan initially sought to lead Turkey into a new era of regional ascendancy. The Great Recession and Arab Spring intervened. Domestic economic vulnerabilities and regional instability have driven him to pursue increasingly populist and unorthodox policies that threaten the credit of the nation and security of the currency. A coup attempt in 2016 and domestic political losses in 2019 drove Erdogan further down this path, which includes aggressive foreign policy as well as domestic economic stimulus. The Anatolian peninsula has always stood at the crossroads of Europe and Asia, as well as Russia and Africa. Turkey’s efforts to change the regional status quo to its favor, increase leverage over its neighbors in Europe and the Middle East, and deal with Russia’s Vladimir Putin from a position of strength, are causing the geopolitics of the Mediterranean to heat up. It has now intervened in the Libyan civil war. In this special report, we focus on this trend and ask what it means for global investors. Unfinished Business In Libya Chart 1Haftar Is Weaponizing Libya’s Oil The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean As the Libyan conflict enters its sixth year this spring, the battle for control of the western bastion of Tripoli rages. Multiple efforts to mediate the conflict between Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar of the Libyan National Army (LNA) and Prime Minister Fayez al-Sarraj of the UN-recognized Government of National Accord (GNA) have failed. Ceasefire talks in Moscow, Rome, and Berlin have fizzled. Instead, fighting has finally hit oil production, with the state-run National Oil Corp (NOC) declaring force majeure on supplies on January 18. Tribal leaders who support Haftar have blockaded eastern ports (Chart 1). Previously the mutual dependence of the rival factions on oil revenues ensured production and exports went mostly undisturbed. LNA forces control nearly all key oil pipelines, fields, ports, and terminals in Libya. The exceptions are the Zawiyya and Mellitah terminals and offshore fields (Map 1). However the National Oil Company (NOC), headquartered in the GNA-controlled Tripoli, is the sole entity controlling operations and the sole marketer of Libyan oil. Map 1Libya’s Oil And Natural Gas Infrastructure: Monopolized By Haftar The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean General Haftar’s blockade – which has ground oil production to a halt – displays his ability to weaponize oil to obtain concessions from the Tripoli-based government. Tribal leaders behind the blockade are calling for a larger share of oil revenues, for which they are at the mercy of the LNA and NOC. With little progress in Haftar’s push to gain control of Tripoli, and Libya more generally, the conflict has reached a stalemate. Not one to back down, Haftar’s decision to cut off oil sales from the Tripoli government, which also cuts off revenues to his own parallel administration, is a brute attempt to force a settlement. Haftar’s gambit follows Turkey’s decision to intervene in Libya on behalf of Sarraj and the GNA. Turkey has deployed roughly 2,000 Syrian fighters, as well as 35 Turkish soldiers in an advisory capacity. Turkey apparently feared that Haftar, who has substantial backing from Egypt and the Gulf Arabs as well as Russia and France, was about to triumph, or at least force a settlement detrimental to Turkish interests. Bottom Line: Turkey’s decision to intervene in the Libyan civil war – while limited in magnitude thus far – raises the stakes of the conflict, which involves the EU, Russia, and the Arab states. It is a clear signal of the geopolitical multipolarity in the region – and a political risk that is flying under the radar amid higher profile risks in other parts of the world. Political Interests: Islamist Democracy Versus Arab Dictatorship The Libyan civil war is a proxy war between foreign nations motivated by conflicting economic and strategic interests in North Africa and the Mediterranean. But there is an ideological and political structure to the conflict that explains the alignment of the nations: Turkey is exporting democracy while the Arab states try to preserve their dictatorships. Haftar’s primary supporters include Egypt, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Saudi Arabia. These states see monarchy as the way to maintain stability in a region constantly on the edge of chaos. Islamist democracy movements, such as Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, pose a threat to their long-term authority and security. They try to suppress these movements and contain regimes that promote them or their militant allies. They are willing to achieve one-man rule by force and thus support military strongmen like Egypt’s Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and Libya’s General Haftar. On the other side of the conflict stand the backers of the GNA – Turkey and Qatar – which support political Islam and party politics (Chart 2). Turkey’s Erdogan and his Justice and Development Party (AKP) are sympathetic to Hamas in the Palestinian territories and Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood. They want to ensure a lasting role for Islamic parties in the region, which strengthens their legitimacy. They do not want Libya’s Islamists to suffer the same fate as their affiliates in the Muslim Brotherhood – removal via a military coup. Chart 2Turkey Sees A Place For Political Islam Turkey Sees A Place For Political Islam Turkey Sees A Place For Political Islam Chart 3Turkey Steps In Amid Qatar Embargo The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean The political conflict is mirrored in the Persian Gulf in the form of the air, land, and sea embargo imposed on Qatar in 2017 at the hands of the Saudis, Egyptians, and Emiratis. The Qatar crisis followed a 2014 diplomatic rift and the 2011 Arab Spring, when Qatar supported protesters and democracy movements against neighboring regimes. The embargo strengthened Turkey-Qatar relations, as Turkey stepped in to ensure that Qataris – who are heavily dependent on imports – would continue to receive essentials (Chart 3). Bottom Line: The alliances forged in the Libyan conflict reflect differing responses to powerful forces of change in the region. Established monarchies and dictatorships are struggling to maintain control of large youth populations and rapidly modernizing economies. Their response is to fortify the existing regime, suppress dissent, and launch gradual reforms through the central government. Their fear of Islamist movements makes them suspicious of Tripoli and the various Islamist groups allied with the GNA, and aligns them with Khalifa Haftar’s attempt to impose a new secular dictatorship in Libya. Meanwhile Turkey, with an active Islamist democracy, is seeking to export its political model, and Muslim Brotherhood-esque political participation, to gain influence across the region, including in Libya and North Africa. Economic Interests: The Scramble For Energy Sources Chart 4Europe Addicted To Russian Gas The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean The Libyan proxy war is also about natural resources, for all the powers involved. Turkey’s intervention reflects its supply insecurity and desire to carve a larger role for itself in the east Mediterranean economy. Turkey needs to secure cheap energy supplies, and also wants to make itself central to any emerging east Mediterranean natural gas hub that aims to serve Europe. Europe’s increasing dependency on natural gas imports to meet its energy demand, and Russia’s outsized role – supplying the EU with 40% of its needs – have encouraged a search for alternative suppliers (Chart 4). Israel is attempting to fill that role with resources discovered offshore in the eastern Mediterranean. Given its strategic location, Turkey hopes to become an energy hub. First, it is cooperating with the Russians. Presidents Putin and Erdogan inaugurated the Turkish Stream pipeline (TurkStream) at a ceremony in Istanbul on January 8. The pipeline will transport 15.75 billion cubic meters (Bcm) of Russian natural gas to Europe via Turkey. This is part of Russia’s attempt, along with the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, to bypass Ukraine and increase export capacity, strengthening its dominance over Europe’s natural gas market (Map 2). Map 2Russia’s Latest Pipelines Bypass Ukraine The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean Europe and its allies are wary of Russian influence, but the EU is not really willing to halt business with Russia, which is a low-cost and long-term provider free from the turmoil of the Middle East. Despite the significant growth in US natural gas supplies, the relatively higher cost makes Russian supplies comparatively more attractive (Chart 5). Chart 5Russian Gas Is Competitive In European Markets … The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean Chart 6… As US Attempts To Gain Market Share The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean The result will be tensions with the United States, which expects the Europeans to honor the security relationship by buying American LNG (Chart 6) and will always abhor anything resembling a Russo-European alliance. American legislation signed on December 20 would impose sanctions on firms that lay pipes for Nord Stream 2 and TurkStream. Second, Turkey wants to become central to eastern Mediterranean energy development. A series of offshore discoveries in recent decades has sparked talk of cooperation among potential suppliers (Table 1). There is a huge constraint on developing the fields quickly, as there is no export route currently available for the volumes that will be produced. While the reserves are not significant on a global scale, their location so close to Europe, and growing needs in the Middle East, has generated some interest. Table 1Recent East Mediterranean Discoveries Are Relatively Small, But Geopolitically Attractive The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean However, Europe and Israel – the status quo powers – threaten to marginalize Turkey in this process: A meeting of the energy ministers of Egypt, Cyprus, Greece, Israel, Italy, the Palestinian territories, and Jordan in Cairo last July resulted in the creation of the Eastern Mediterranean Gas Forum to promote regional energy cooperation. Turkey – along with Lebanon and Syria – was excluded. Turkey seeks access to natural resources – and to prevent Israel, Egypt, and Europe from excluding it. The EastMed Pipeline deal – signed by Greece, Cyprus, and Israel on January 2 – envisages a nearly 2,000 km subsea pipeline transporting gas from Israeli and Cypriot offshore fields to Cyprus, Crete and Greece, supplying Europe with 9-12 Bcm per year (Map 3). The project enjoys the support of the European Commission and the US as an attempt to diversify Europe’s gas supplies and boost its energy security.1 But it would also be an alternative to an overland pipeline on Turkish territory. Map 3The Proposed EastMed Pipeline Would Marginalize Turkey The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean Egypt has two underutilized liquefied natural gas plants – in Idku and Damietta – and has benefited from the 2015 discovery of the Zohr gas field. Egypt has recently become a net exporter of natural gas (Chart 7). It signed a deal with Israel to purchase 85.3 Bcm – $19.5 billion – of gas from Leviathan and Tamar fields over 15 years. Egypt sees itself as an energy hub if it can re-export Israeli supplies economically. Note that Russia and Turkey have some overlapping interests here. Russia does not want Europe to diversify, while Turkey does not want to allow alternatives to Russia that exclude Turkey. Thus maintaining the current trajectory of natural gas projects is not only useful for Russia’s economy (Chart 8) but also for Turkey’s strategic ambitions. Chart 7Egypt Also Aims To Become East Mediterranean Gas Hub The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean Of course, while Russian pipes are actually getting built, the EastMed pipeline is not – for economic as well as geopolitical reasons. Europe is currently well supplied and energy prices are low. At an estimated $7 billion, the cost of constructing the EastMed pipeline is exorbitant. Chart 8Maintaining Energy Dominance Advances Russia’s Strategic Ambitions Too The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean Still, Turkey must make its influence known now, as energy development and pipelines are necessarily long-term projects. The chaos in Libya presents an opportunity. Seizing on the Libyan GNA’s weakness, Turkey signed an agreement to provide for offshore maritime boundaries and energy cooperation as well as military aid. The EastMed pipeline, of course, would need to cross through Turkish and Libyan economic zones (see Map 3 above).2 Turkey is incapable of asserting its will militarily in the Mediterranean against powerful western naval forces. But short of war, it is capable of expanding its claims and leverage over regional energy and forcing the Israelis and Europeans to deal with it pragmatically and realistically rather than exclude it from their plans. Part of Turkey’s goal is to cement an alliance with Libya – at least a partitioned western Libyan government in any ceasefire brokered with Haftar and the Russians. Bottom Line: While Turkey and Russia support opposing sides in the Libyan conflict, both benefit from dealing directly with each other – bypassing the western powers, which are frustrated and ineffectual in Libya. Both would gain some direct energy leverage over Europe and both would gain some influence over any future eastern Mediterranean routes to Europe. In Libya, if either side triumphs and unites the country, it will grant its allies oil and gas contracts almost exclusively. But if the different foreign actors can build up leverage on opposing sides, they can hope to secure at least some of their interests in a final settlement. Turkey Needs Foreign Distractions The foregoing would imply that Turkey is playing the game well, except that its foreign adventures are in great part driven by domestic economic and political instability. After all, Turkey’s maritime claims are useless if they cannot be enforced, and offshore development and pipeline-building are at a low level given weak energy prices and slowing global demand. Economically, in true populist fashion, Erdogan has repeatedly employed money creation and fiscal spending to juice nominal GDP growth. The result is a wage-price spiral, currency depreciation, and current account deficits that exacerbate the problem. The poor economy has mobilized political opposition. Over the past year, for the first time since Erdogan rose to power in 2002, his Justice and Development Party is fracturing. Former Turkish deputy prime minister Ali Babacan, a founding member of the AKP, as well as former prime minister Ahmet Davutoglu, have both announced breakaway political parties that threaten to erode support for the AKP. Local elections in 2019 resulted in a popular rebuke in Istanbul. Thus Erdogan is distracting the public with hawkish or nationalist stances abroad that are popular at home. Turkey has taken a strident stance against the US and Europe, symbolized by its threats to loose Syrian refugees into Europe and its purchase of S400 missile defense from Russia despite being a NATO member. Military incursions in Syria aim to relocate refugees back to Syria (Chart 9). Chart 9Erdogan Is Distracting Turks With Popular Foreign Stances The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean Chart 10No Love Lost Toward The West The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean Turkish public opinion encourages close cooperation with Russia and a more aggressive stance against the West (Chart 10). This is a basis for Russia and Turkey to continue cutting transactional deals despite falling on opposite sides of conflicts in Syria, Libya, Iran, and elsewhere. Erdogan’s pretensions of reviving Ottoman grandeur in the Mediterranean fall in this context. Elections are not until 2023, but we expect Erdogan to continue using foreign policy as a distraction. The opposition is trying to unite behind a single candidate, which could jeopardize Erdogan’s grip on power. The insistence on stimulus at all costs means that Erdogan is not allowing the economic reckoning to occur now, three years before the election. He is trying to delay it indefinitely, which may fail. Libya may not get resolved, however. Allies of Haftar’s LNA – specifically Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE – will be motivated to intensify their support of him for fear that a loss would revive domestic interest in political Islam. Egypt especially fears militant proxies being unleashed from any base of operations there. The LNA currently serves as a buffer between Egypt and the militant actors in Libya. If Haftar is defeated, Egypt’s porous western border would provoke a harsh reaction from Cairo. The threat of a revival of Islamic State in Libya has united the Egyptian people – a critical variable in the administration’s vision of a stable country. That has provided Egypt’s Sisi an excuse to flex his muscles through military exercises. Neither Russia nor NATO will be moved to bring a decisive finish to the conflict, as neither wishes to invest too heavily in it. Bottom Line: Erdogan has doubled down on populism at home and abroad. His assertive foreign policy in Syria and now Libya may end up exacerbating economic and political pressures on the ruling party. What Is The Endgame In Libya? There are three possible scenarios to end the current stalemate between the Haftar’s forces and the internationally recognized GNA: Military: An outright military victory by either Haftar or Sarraj is highly unlikely. While Haftar’s forces enjoy military and financial support from the UAE, he lacks popular support in Tripoli – which has proved to be challenging to takeover. Similarly, Sarraj’s army is not strong enough to confront the eastern forces and reunify the country. The merely limited involvement of foreign actors – including Turkey – makes a military solution all the more elusive. The most likely path to a quick military victory comes if foreign actors disengage. This will only occur if they are punished for their involvement, and thus it requires a major neutral power, perhaps the United States, to change the calculus of countries involved. But the US is eschewing involvement and the Europeans have shown no appetite for a heavy commitment. Diplomatic: A negotiated settlement is eventually likely, given the loss of oil revenues. A ceasefire would assign some autonomy to each side of the country. Given Haftar’s ambitions of conquering the capital and becoming a strongman for the country as a whole, the diplomatic route will be challenging unless his Gulf backers grow tired of subsidizing him. Financial: Haftar could win by breaking the NOC’s monopoly on oil. In the past, the LNA failed at selling the oil extracted from infrastructure under its control. If Haftar manages to market the oil without the aid of the NOC then he will be able to guarantee a stream of revenue for his forces and at the same time starve the Tripoli government of financing. This would pose an existential risk for the GNA. The key challenge in this scenario is to obtain international backing for LNA sales of Libyan crude supplies. Libya’s partition into two de facto states is the likeliest outcome. Bottom Line: Unless one of the constraints on a military, diplomatic, or financial end to the conflict is broken, the current stalemate in the Libyan conflict will endure. A partition of Libya will be the practical consequence. Turkey hopes to boost its regional influence through Tripoli, and thus increase its leverage over Europe, but a heavy investment could result in fiscal losses or spiral into a broader regional confrontation. Investment Implications While it is not clear how long the current blockade on Libyan ports will last – or the associated over 1 million barrels per day loss of production – oil supplies will remain at risk so long as the conflict endures. However, unlike supplies in the Gulf or in Venezuela, Libyan crude is of the light sweet grade. There is enough global spare capacity – from US shales – to make up for the Libyan loss, at least over the short term. The fall in Libyan supplies is occurring against the backdrop of oil markets that have been beaten down by the decline in demand on the back of the coronavirus impact (Chart 11). The OPEC 2.0 technical panel recommended additional output cuts of 600 thousand barrels per day last week, and is waiting on a final decision by Russia. We expect the cartel to tighten supplies to shore up prices. The instability in Libya could also affect Europe through immigration. The conflict re-routes migrants through the western route and thus could result in an increased flow to Spain and Portugal, rather than Italy which was previously their landing pad (Chart 12). A meaningful pick up would have a negative impact on European domestic political stability, especially with Germany in the midst of a succession crisis and incapable of taking a lead role. Chart 11Libyan Blockade Comes Amid Demand Shock Libyan Blockade Comes Amid Demand Shock Libyan Blockade Comes Amid Demand Shock Chart 12Refugees Will Favor Western Route Across The Mediterranean Refugees Will Favor Western Route Across The Mediterranean Refugees Will Favor Western Route Across The Mediterranean Erdogan’s foreign adventurism, and aggression against the West, poses a risk for Turkish markets. We remain underweight Turkish currency and risk assets. Our Emerging Markets strategists expect foreign capital outflows from EM to weigh on Turkey’s currency, local fixed-income and sovereign credit relative to EM benchmarks. Go short the Turkish lira relative to the US dollar. Bottom Line: Historically, the Mediterranean was the world’s most important waterway. It was the “life line” of the British empire. The US succeeded the British as the guarantor of Suez and corralled both Turkey and Greece into a single alliance under the Truman Doctrine. This status quo held until the twenty-first century. Since 2000, Russia has revived, US foreign policy in the Middle East has become erratic, and the Europeans have lost clout. Turkey is seeking to carve a space for itself and challenge the settlements of the past, all the way back to the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne. Yet in the wake of the Great Recession its economy is unstable and its populist leaders are taking greater risks abroad. The result will be greater friction with Europe, or the Arab states, or both. Given Turkey’s mismanagement at home, and limited gains to be made in Syria or Libya, Turkish assets will be the first to suffer from negative surprises.   Roukaya Ibrahim Editor/Strategist Geopolitical Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 The Eastern Mediterranean Security and Energy Partnership Act of 2019 is an American bi-partisan bill the lends full support for the East Med pipelines and greater security cooperation with Israel, Cyprus, and Greece. The US Senate also passed an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act last June which ended the arms embargo on Cyprus. 2 Turkey has also been engaging in drilling activities in disputed waters near Cyprus – which Ankara argues it is undertaking in order to protect Turkish-Cypriot claims – motivating EU economic sanctions in the form of travel bans and asset freezes on two Turkish nationals.

Highlights The market will not give OPEC 2.0 until March to sort out a durable modus operandi to manage supply and maintain the discipline required to defend crude oil prices. While the odds of Libya and Nigeria being able to keep production at current levels - much less grow output - are less than 50:50 in our estimation, the fact remains the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia need to start communicating post-haste how OPEC 2.0 will manage higher Libyan and Nigerian production. Critically, these leaders will need to follow through on whatever they guide the market to expect. We think OPEC 2.0 will stand by its "whatever it takes" proclamations. Not acting in the face of more than 300k b/d of unexpected supply from a once-moribund Libya placed in the market since October will send a signal, as well: OPEC 2.0 will not defend its Agreement. Should this occur, it likely would result in a breakdown in production discipline within the coalition, sending crude oil prices lower. Energy: Overweight. Crude oil prices remain under pressure as markets price the likelihood of continued increases in production in Libya and the U.S. Spoiler alert: We think OPEC 2.0 will act to accommodate Libya's and Nigeria's return to export markets. Base Metals: Neutral. Workers at the Zaldivar copper mine owned by Antofagasta and Barrick Gold voted to strike earlier this week. If government mediation fails to resolve the issues separating labor and management this week, workers will walk. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold is recovering from last week's "flash crash" in silver, but markets continue to process recent hawkish guidance from systematically important central banks that could lift real rates and pressure precious metals. Ags/Softs: The USDA's WASDE was published just before our deadline. We will review it in next week's publication. Feature Markets may have tacitly assumed OPEC 2.0 would have until March to figure out how KSA, Russia, and their respective allies would work together to re-gain some control over oil prices. However, given almost-daily reductions in banks' oil-price forecasts in the wake of steadily increasing Libyan and U.S. production, belief in OPEC 2.0's strategy and commitment appears to be all but exhausted. Stronger-than-expected output from Libya and Nigeria - up some 400k b/d vs. the October production levels OPEC 2.0 benchmarks to (Chart of the Week) - is being offset by strong inventory draws in high-frequency data from the U.S. and Europe, as we expected. In addition, a reduction in 2018 U.S. shale-growth forecasts in the EIA's just-released estimates of global supply and demand boosted sentiment some. Even so, markets remain skeptical. Libya's production now is estimated at 850k b/d, and accounts for 300k b/d of newly arrived OPEC supply since October. Nigeria, at close to 1.6mm b/d, accounts for another 90k b/d of the unexpected supply on the market since October. OPEC's total crude output is running at just over 32.6mm b/d, down 470k b/d from October's levels, based on the EIA's tally.1 This was 300k b/d more than May's output. Taking Libyan and Nigerian output out of the tally leaves OPEC crude production at 30.21mm b/d, or 860k b/d below October's level. Close to 26mm b/d of OPEC's output is being exported, according to Thompson Reuters data, surpassing OPEC's 4Q16 export levels when Cartel members' output was surging ahead of the OPEC 2.0 production cuts that took effect in January.2 Although benchmark crude oil prices had recovered from their bear-market lows of late June, the steady increase in Libyan production, in particular, reversed this recovery, taking $2.70 and $2.80/bbl off the interim highs registered by WTI and Brent prompt contracts between July 3 and July 10 (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekLibya, Nigeria Add Close ##br##To 400k b/d To OPEC 2.0 Production Libya, Nigeria Add Close To 400k b/d To OPEC 2.0 Production Libya, Nigeria Add Close To 400k b/d To OPEC 2.0 Production Chart 2Libya's Resurgence Clobbers ##br##Benchmark Prices Libya's Resurgence Clobbers Benchmark Prices Libya's Resurgence Clobbers Benchmark Prices Prices have since moved higher of the back on larger-than-expected draws in crude and products in the OECD, led by the U.S. On Wednesday, the EIA reported U.S. crude inventories declined by a whopping 10.7 million barrels, although product inventories grew by 3.7 million barrels for the week ended July 7. These sharp draws (over 17 million barrels of crude storage reduction in the past two weeks, including SPR withdrawals) are what we have been expecting, so we are not surprised, although this is the second week in a row in which the inventory draws exceeded market expectations for the EIA's reporting week. WTI was trading just above$45/bbl, while Brent was just over $47.60/bbl as we went to press. OPEC 2.0's Problem The problem for OPEC 2.0 is that Libya's unexpectedly strong return will retard the drawdown in OECD inventories around which the reformed Cartel is organized. This is compounded by higher U.S. production, which the EIA's latest estimates put at 9.2mm b/d. U.S. crude production in June was up 410k b/d vs. 4Q16 levels, and 510k b/d yoy, by the EIA's reckoning. The bulk of this increase comes from shale-oil production, which is running at ~ 5.1mm b/d (Chart 3). Lower prices will slow the growth of U.S. shale-oil output, but it won't reverse the absolute increase unless prices once again push below $40/bbl for an extended period. We do not expect such an evolution of prices, and continue to expect Brent will average $55/bbl and will reach $60/bbl by the end of the year, with WTI trading at ~ $58/bbl by then. OPEC 2.0's production is not as sensitive to price as the U.S. shales. The coalition banded together to remove some 1.8mm b/d of oil production from the market, and, based on media reports, continues to maintain production discipline. We reckon actual cuts have been on the order of 1.4 to 1.5mm b/d from OPEC 2.0, favoring the lower end of that range, given the latest estimates of the EIA. Given demand growth of ~ 1.6mm b/d on average this year and next, we are expecting a net physical deficit this year of ~ 900k b/d (Chart 4). This will draw OECD inventories down by March below five-year average levels (Chart 5). Chart 3Higher Prices Lifted U.S. ##br##Shale-Oil Production, But Lower Prices Will Slow The Growth Higher Prices Lifted U.S. Shale-Oil Production, But Lower Prices Will Slow The Growth Higher Prices Lifted U.S. Shale-Oil Production, But Lower Prices Will Slow The Growth Chart 4Output Declines And Demand ##br##Gains Will Produce A Physical Deficit ... Output Declines And Demand Gains Will Produce A Physical Deficit ... Output Declines And Demand Gains Will Produce A Physical Deficit ... Chart 5OPEC 2.0 Has To Defend Its Strategy, ##br##If OECD Inventories Are To Fall OPEC 2.0 Has To Defend Its Strategy, If OECD Inventories Are To Fall OPEC 2.0 Has To Defend Its Strategy, If OECD Inventories Are To Fall It is worth remembering Libya and Nigeria are not parties to the OPEC 2.0 deal. Nor did the leaders of this coalition anticipate a sustained increase in production by these states when the OPEC 2.0 deal was agreed at the end of last year. This is particularly true for Libya, which is a failed state. The suggestion by Kuwait that Libya and Nigeria be brought into the OPEC 2.0 production-cutting agreement beggars belief: The Arab Spring destroyed Libya as a state, and its oil production. Since March 2011, when the state collapsed, Libya's oil production has averaged 650kb/d, versus 1.65mm b/d in 2010. Even if there were a government in place, it is unlikely it would agree to cap its production. Nigeria's production also has been hampered by civil unrest, particularly in the Niger Delta region, where insurgents periodically sabotage pipelines and loading platforms, which forces oil exports to be suspended until repairs can be made. Nigeria's production averaged over 2mm b/d until 2013, when it fell to 1.83mm b/d. Since then, it has averaged 1.66mm b/d, with 2017 production to June averaging 1.43mm b/d. Any increase in production resulting in export sales is "found money" for these states. And their need for this money is as great, if not greater, than that of the OPEC 2.0 coalition members. Who In OPEC 2.0 Is Likely To Cut Production? KSA, Kuwait and the UAE were producing close to 2.4mm b/d more in June than they were in 2010, the last year Libya was an intact state, even with the cuts agreed under the OPEC 2.0 deal accounted for. Even at its recent high of 850k b/d of production, Libya still is producing 800k b/d less than it did in 2010. We believe an accommodation involving KSA, and possibly Kuwait and the UAE, can and will be reached at the upcoming OPEC 2.0 technical committee meeting in St. Petersburg on July 24. Something on the order of 500k b/d from these Gulf Arab producers will allow Libya and Nigeria to flex into higher production without undermining the OPEC 2.0 production-cutting deal. The stakes are sufficiently high for the OPEC 2.0 members - KSA and Russia in particular - that an accommodation for Libya will be found. Libya's maximum production likely is no more than 1mm b/d, given the damage years of neglect has caused its fields and productive capital. Rebuilding this province will take years, if a way can be found to reconstitute the organs of a functioning state. Absent an accommodation, OPEC 2.0's leaders risk undermining the credibility of the coalition and causing production discipline to collapse as each state in the group rushes to increase output before prices take their inevitable dive. This would severely reduce the proceeds KSA could expect from IPO'ing Aramco, and would again put Russia's revenue under pressure, forcing it to draw down foreign reserves. OPEC 2.0's End Game Hasn't Changed Neither KSA nor Russia wants to re-visit the conditions that prevailed in 1Q16, when markets were pricing a global full-storage event that would require prices to push through $20/bbl to kill off supply so that storage could drain. For this reason, both have shown their commitment to the production-cutting pact they negotiated at the end of last year. Both, we are convinced, are working closely to map a strategy to allow U.S. shale production to co-exist - within limits - with OPEC and Russian production. In earlier research, we laid out a strategy that could work to achieve this result - draw storage down enough to backwardate the WTI forward curve so that deferred prices trade below prompt-delivery prices. This will moderate - but not stop - the rate at which horizontal rigs return to the shale fields.3 OPEC 2.0's leaders will have to find a way to use their production and storage - which is why it is critical to open some space now - to guide markets to expect higher production and crude availability in the future and tighter market conditions in the present. Bottom Line: We expect OPEC 2.0 to accommodate Libya's and Nigeria's increased production with further cuts in their own production, particularly from KSA, Kuwait and the UAE. This will allow Libya and Nigeria to flex into higher output, should they find a way to maintain it going forward. We continue to believe the odds of sustained higher production from these states is less than 50:50, but that does not matter. What matters is that markets see OPEC 2.0 defending their production-cutting strategy so that inventories continue to draw. OPEC 2.0's end-game has not changed. But the leaders of the coalition will have to adapt if they are to succeed in drawing storage to five-year averages or lower. Critically, they must begin to communicate their longer-term strategy to the market, or risk undermining their coalition. 2Q17 Trade Recommendations Re-Cap We closed out 2Q17 with an average loss of 77% on trades recommended and closed during the quarter (Table 1). The primary driver of this underperformance was a return to contango in the WTI and Brent forward curves, as inventories failed to draw as quickly as we expected. Directional trade recommendations anticipating higher prices also performed poorly. Table 1Trade Recommendation Performance In 2Q17 Time For "Whatever It Takes" In Oil Markets! Time For "Whatever It Takes" In Oil Markets! Open trades at the end of 2Q17 were up an average of 26%, led by good performances in option recommendations - i.e., long call spreads in WTI and Brent in Dec/17. Year to date, our trade recommendations are up 72.6%, on the back of strong 1Q17 results. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 This is adjusted for the inclusion of Equatorial Guinea and the recent opting out of Indonesia. We will be updating our global supply-demand balances next week. 2 Please see "Oil slides as OPEC exports rise, prices end 8 days of gains," published by reuters.com July 5, 2017. 3 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy reports of April 6, 2017, entitled "The Game's Afoot in Oil, But Which One," and March 30, 2017, entitled "KSA's, Russia's End Game: Contain U.S. Shale Oil." Both are available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views And Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Trades Open And Closed In 2017 Time For "Whatever It Takes" In Oil Markets! Time For "Whatever It Takes" In Oil Markets! Summary Of Trades Closed In 2016 Trades Closed In 2017 Commodity Prices And Plays Reference Table

Highlights With crude-oil inventory transfers from OPEC to western refining centers slowing, OPEC 2.0's production cuts will begin to show up in high-frequency OECD inventory data in the form of lower stock levels. The coalition has been bedeviled by higher production from Libya and Nigeria, and a push from Iraq asserting its right - in line with its huge reserves - to increase production. U.S. imports from Iraq are growing this year, even as other OPEC members slow shipments. In addition, Iraqi crude oil inventories also were increasing while other OPEC states were running their stocks down, which suggests Iraq may be preparing to lift production and exports in the near future. Energy: Overweight. Crude oil rallied sharply over the past week, despite reports of higher Libyan production. We remain long via Dec/17 $50/bbl vs. $55/bbl call spreads in Brent and WTI. Base Metals: Neutral. The U.S. reportedly is using a national security review of the U.S. steel industry, to determine whether it will impose tariffs on steel imports at this week's G20 meeting in Germany. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold recovered after selling off last week on the back of more aggressive guidance from central bankers. We remain long gold as a portfolio hedge. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The USDA's acreage reports for grains were less bearish than expected, rallying markets into this week. We remain bearish, but also recommend investors continue to avoid shorting these markets. Feature Chart of the WeekCrude Oil Prices Rally,##BR##Despite Reports Of Higher Production Crude Oil Prices Rally, Despite Reports Of Higher Production Crude Oil Prices Rally, Despite Reports Of Higher Production Oil rallied 9.6% over the past week from recent lows, despite news reports of Libya pushing crude oil production toward 1mm b/d by the end of this month, and further indications Iraq is gearing up to increase production and exports (Chart of the Week). We expect prices to continue to be well supported in 2H17, as the production cuts engineered by OPEC 2.0 - the OPEC and non-OPEC producers' coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia, respectively - finally begin showing up in the high-frequency storage data for the U.S. and the OECD. This is because, we believe, the massive crude-oil inventory transfers between OPEC and OECD refining centers is winding down. OPEC Inventory Transfer Winding Down Crude oil inventories in major oil importers with significant refining capabilities - in particular, the U.S. and the Amsterdam-Rotterdam-Antwerp (ARA) refining center in the Netherlands and Belgium - grew by a bit more than 35mm barrels (bbl) year-on-year (yoy) on average over the January - April period, based on data from the Joint Organisations Data Initiative (JODI), a transnational group made up of producing and consuming interests headquartered in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The January - April period marked the first four months of the OPEC 2.0 production-cutting Agreement, in which OPEC pledged to reduce output by 1.2mm b/d, and non-OPEC obliged itself to cut an additional 600k b/d of production. The yoy builds in the U.S. and ARA inventories were a mirror-image of the average yoy inventory withdrawals occurring in OPEC states that reported their stock levels to JODI in the first four months of this year (Chart 2). The JODI inventory data indicates that even as OPEC 2.0 was cutting production in the first four months of the year - by some estimates by more than 100% of the pledged 1.8mm b/d of reductions - these states were draining stocks from inventories during this period to maintain sales to key clients. The declining trend in high-frequency U.S. inventory data from the EIA for the U.S. East coast (PADD 1), the Midwest (PADD 2), and the U.S. Gulf (PADD 3), and declining weekly import estimates support our contention that OPEC inventories will continue to decline, and that the production surge by OPEC in 4Q16 will finally be worked off (Chart 3). Given the downtrend in the weekly high-frequency crude oil import data for the U.S., we expect crude-oil shipments from OPEC to continue to slow as production cuts no longer are masked by inventory draws (Chart 4). Among the top 10 crude oil exporters to the U.S., KSA shipments are down an average 55k b/d in yoy 2Q17 vs. an increase of slightly more than 150k b/d in 1Q17. KSA shipped 1.09mm b/d to the U.S. in 2Q17 vs. 1.23mm b/d in 1Q17. The rates at which Iraq and Nigeria were shipping oil to the U.S. also slowed, but are still above year-ago levels, as is to be expected given the civil strife from which both are recovering - Iraq's 2Q17 exports to the U.S. were up 279k b/d vs. 316k in 1Q17 yoy at 663k and 592k b/d, while Nigeria's exports to the U.S. were up 67k b/d yoy in 2Q17 and 69k b/d in 1Q17, at 286k b/d and 270k b/d, respectively. Chart 2OPEC Inventory Transfer##BR##Winds Down In 2017 OPEC Inventory Transfer Winds Down In 2017 OPEC Inventory Transfer Winds Down In 2017 Chart 3Surge In 2H16 OPEC Production##BR##Is Being Worked Off Surge In 2H16 OPEC Production Is Being Worked Off Surge In 2H16 OPEC Production Is Being Worked Off Continued high levels of U.S. refining runs and exports of crude and products also will accelerate draws in the U.S., even though refining runs are not growing at rates seen last year when the overall level of refining was lower (Chart 5). Chart 4OPEC Exports To##BR##The U.S. Are Slowing OPEC Exports To The U.S. Are Slowing OPEC Exports To The U.S. Are Slowing Chart 5U.S. Refinery Runs And Exports##BR##Remain High U.S. Refinery Runs And Exports Remain High U.S. Refinery Runs And Exports Remain High Watch Iraq Chart 6Libya, Nigeria Increase Production,##BR##But The Big Story Will Be Iraq Libya, Nigeria Increase Production, But The Big Story Will Be Iraq Libya, Nigeria Increase Production, But The Big Story Will Be Iraq The OPEC 2.0 agreement has been bedeviled by higher-than-expected production from Libya, where officials claim they will be producing at 1.0mm b/d by the end of July, and Nigeria.1 In our balances, we have Libyan production up some 100k b/d from last month at ~ 800k b/d. Nigeria currently is producing ~ 1.5mm b/d, after falling to as low as 1.2mm b/d due to sabotage of its export facilities. But, without doubt, the OPEC state with the greatest potential for production growth is Iraq, which currently is producing ~ 4.5mm b/d (Chart 6). Iraqi local inventories were up 43% yoy in April at just over 11mm bbl. Iraqi exports to the U.S. were up more than 50% yoy to just over 640k b/d in June. Ordinarily, this would not warrant much attention, given the harmony that so far has characterized OPEC 2.0's performance since year-end 2016. However, Iraqi officials have begun advocating for higher production levels, which, in their protestations, would be consistent with their high reserve levels. Just this week, the country's oil minister, Jabar al-Luaibi, asked rhetorically, "Why should Iraq be deprived from increasing its production? Not to disturb or disrupt OPEC at all, or the prices, but it is our right to have our production that corresponds to our reserves."2 He observed, "We have gas, we have oil. We have the right to do well. As simple as that." Iraq certainly has the reserves necessary to increase production significantly, but would require significant time and capital to grow production materially above the record levels reached in Q4 2016, which were about 200,000-300,000 b/d above current levels. "Whatever It Takes" May Require KSA To Cut Again If Libya can hold to its higher production level, and even reach 1mm b/d, and Iraq decides to exercise its "right" to produce more, OPEC 2.0 will have to cut additional barrels from the coalition's production to accommodate the higher output. Given Russia's apparent reluctance to do so, this could mark the first significant test of the durability of the agreement that created OPEC 2.0. The stakes are high if these production cuts are not addressed. As Russians go to the polls in March 2018, and, later in the year, KSA seeks to IPO Aramco, multiple problems will present themselves: Another production free-for-all that collapses prices would trigger another round of high consumer-level inflation in Russia, as the rouble falls once again, and KSA's IPO would value Aramco far below the $2 trillion Saudi officials are hoping for. Our bullish price view - we're expecting Brent to trade to $60/bbl by year-end - will be deep-sixed if production cannot be controlled. As it stands, we have total OPEC crude production just over 32mm b/d in 2017, and slightly over 32.5mm b/d in 2018. Given the stout demand growth we expect this year and next, we expect close to 900k b/d more demand growth over supply growth, based on our modelling. Next year, we expect supply growth of 2.25mm b/d, and demand growth of 1.62mm b/d, so supply growth exceeds demand growth in 2018 by 630k b/d, moving oil markets from undersupplied to balanced/slightly over-supplied. Obviously, higher production would change these balances. The big questions for the market going forward: Will OPEC states that have drained inventories supporting sales to key clients maintain production discipline, allowing inventories in the U.S. and ARA to drain? Will OPEC 2.0 unravel under pressure from Russia and KSA assessments of the need for additional cuts? Can Libya and Nigeria maintain higher output? Libya is a failed state, and warring tribes almost surely will seek to take control over as much of the revenue-generating capacity of the oil-export facilities in the East and West of the country as possible. Nigeria, although not a failed state, faces similar difficulties containing the sabotage that has disabled export capacity on and off for the past few years. Whither Iraq? A price collapse would definitely reduce U.S. shale output, as the 2015 - 1H2016 experience demonstrated. If domestic U.S. prices stayed lower for longer, we would expect rig counts to decline, reducing the rate of growth in U.S., supply. Right now, we expect U.S. shale output to grow 340k b/d this year and by ~ 1mm b/d next year based on earlier, higher price levels. Our research has shown the very high correlation between U.S. shale output and WTI prices along the forward curve out to 3 years forward, and a low price definitely will lead to lower rig counts. Bottom Line: OPEC 2.0 still is holding together. Going into its ministerial meeting at the end of this month, it must provide clear guidance to the market over how it will handle a sustained increase in Libyan production. In addition, Iraq's intentions must be clear - otherwise, the market will assume the worst. We remain bullish, and continue to recommend low-risk long positions - we are long Dec/17 $50 vs. $55/bbl call spreads in Brent and WTI. Once markets are given greater clarity, we will look for higher-risk alternatives for putting new length on. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "Libya's Oil Production Nears 4 Year High," in oilprice.com's June 29, 2017, online edition. 2 The minister's remarks were reported in the July 5, 2017, issue of, Iraq Daily Journal's online edition. Please see "Iraq Has Right To Achieve Oil Output In Line With Reserves - Minister." Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2017 OPEC's Oil Inventory Shift Winding Down OPEC's Oil Inventory Shift Winding Down Summary of Trades Closed in 2016

Highlights Odds the leaders of the OPEC 2.0 petro-states will be forced to back up last month's "whatever it takes" declaration - perhaps deepening and extending the 1.8mm b/d production cuts agreed at the end of last year - are not yet overwhelming. All the same, they will continue to increase, if markets do not see sustained draws in visible storage. Our updated supply-demand balances indicate global crude inventories will continue to draw, and that these draws will accelerate. This will keep global storage levels on track to normalize later this year or in 1Q18. We continue to expect Brent to trade to $60/bbl by December, with WTI ~ $2/bbl under that. Energy: Overweight. Our low-risk call spread initiated last week - long Dec/17 $50/bbl WTI calls vs. short $55/bbl WTI calls - is down 18.9%, following continued selling. We are adding to the position with the same Dec/17 strikes in Brent at tonight's close. These are strategic positions. Base Metals: Neutral. SHFE copper inventories fell on the back of increased demand for collateral to support financing deals in China. Tightening credit conditions are beginning to bite as the government pushes deleveraging policies, according to Metal Bulletin. Precious Metals: Neutral. We remain long gold, despite the hawkish rhetoric being thrown around by Fed officials, particularly William Dudley, head of the NY Fed. Our long gold portfolio hedge is up 1.1% since it was put on May 4, 2017. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Chicago and KC winter wheat remain bid, as concerns over drought-induced damage to the crop continue to weigh on markets. Feature Chart of the WeekUpdated Balances Leave Us Bullish Crude Updated Balances Leave Us Bullish Crude Updated Balances Leave Us Bullish Crude Insomuch as such things can ever be "official," crude oil officially entered a bear market - down 20% or more from recent highs - with the unexpected arrival of WTI futures below the lower end of our long-time $45-to-$65/bbl trading range this week.1 The proximate causes of this turn of events are persistently sticky inventory levels - most visible in the high-frequency data from the U.S. - and growing fears increasing Libyan and U.S. shale-oil production will undermine OPEC 2.0's 1.8mm b/d production cuts. We are hard-pressed to see the case for such fears, even though the market is consistently trading in a manner that is more aligned with supply cuts being far less than advertised by OPEC 2.0, or demand slowing considerably more than any agency or data service has yet picked up on. We will never be able to confirm sovereign hedging - e.g., Mexico or Iraq hedging oil-production revenues - until after the fact. However, this cannot be dismissed out of hand. Based on our latest supply-demand analysis, OPEC 2.0 - the coalition lead by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia - will have removed some 1.4mm b/d of production on average from the market between January 2017 and end-March 2018 vs. peak production in November of last year (Chart of the Week). This will be diluted somewhat by the Libyan and U.S. production gains, but this increased production will not be sufficient to counter the OPEC 2.0 cuts entirely. Global Oil Supply Contracting Sharply Chart 2OECD Storage Draws On Track OECD Storage Draws On Track OECD Storage Draws On Track Against peak production in November 2016, we see just over 1.2mm b/d of crude oil production being cut by OPEC between January and end-March-2018.2 Throw in another 200 - 300k b/d or so from the non-OPEC members of the OPEC 2.0 coalition - mostly Russia - and we get to 1.4 to 1.5mm b/d of production taken off the market in the Jan/17 - Mar/18, interval in our modeling. This will leave the highly visible OECD storage levels being targeted by OPEC 2.0 at ~ 2.70 billion barrels by the end of the year, or some time close to the start of next year (Chart 2). In our modeling, we do not agree with the implied 1.9mm b/d of production cuts that follow from the reported OPEC 2.0 compliance statistics in the press. These reports indicate OPEC 2.0 coalition members are at 106% compliance. This is remarkably high, even if reports of this compliance rely on anonymous sources speaking to reporters following the coalition's technical committee meeting in Vienna earlier this week.3 If the production discipline attested to is true, we will raise our estimate of how quickly inventories will draw this year, and lower our expected global inventory levels for the end of March 2018. As for U.S. crude production, while we do have Dec/17 production 1.1mm b/d over Dec/16, we expect America's contribution to yoy global production growth to be only ~ 340k b/d on average over the course of 2017. The U.S. gains will be driven by shale-oil production, which we expect to grow ~ 410k b/d to 5.2mm b/d this year (Chart 3). Libya's production recently surged to 900k b/d, according to press reports, but, so far this year, it is averaging just under 700k b/d (Chart 4). This is slightly higher than the level we've been modeling in our balances for this year. The 300k b/d yoy increase in Libya's production is impressive, but it does not overwhelm OPEC 2.0's cuts. Even if Libyan production were to average 1mm b/d in 2H17, its net contribution to global production this year would be ~ 840k b/d, an increase of ~ 400k b/d over 2016's levels. We also note that as production and revenue increase the likelihood of renewed violence in Libya also increases.4 Chart 3U.S. Shale-Oil##BR##Growth Could Slow U.S. Shale-Oil Growth Could Slow U.S. Shale-Oil Growth Could Slow Chart 4Libya's Recover Is Impressive,##BR##But It Won't Reverse OPEC 2.0's Cuts Libya's Recover Is Impressive, But It Won't Reverse OPEC 2.0's Cuts Libya's Recover Is Impressive, But It Won't Reverse OPEC 2.0's Cuts Between them, combined growth in U.S. and Libyan production looks like it will be a touch under 650k b/d yoy (on average). Meanwhile, OPEC 2.0's production cuts - assessed against peak output for 2016 - are on track to exceed targets set at the outset of the agreement last December. Net, on a yoy basis, we expect to register inventory draws of close to 900k b/d this year. This should lead to cumulative draws in global storage levels of at least 400mm bbls by end-March. Demand Remains Strong The EIA revised its liquids demand estimates in its most recent Short-term Energy Outlook (STEO), and now has 2015 global consumption up 300k b/d from previous estimates at 95.4mm b/d, and 2016 consumption up 180k b/d at 96.9mm b/d. Our expected growth in global demand for this year and next is in line with the EIA's average estimate of ~ 1.6mm b/d, which will put 2017 demand at 98.5mm b/d and 2018 at 100.1mm b/d, respectively. Growth this year and next is expected to be slightly higher than last year's level (Chart 5). Once again, we expect EM demand - proxied by non-OECD liquids consumption - to lead global growth this year and next. Concern over apparent slowing in U.S. refined-product demand - particularly gasoline - is, we believe, overdone. Growth this year is being compared to stellar rates last year (Chart 6), which still leaves the level of demand above 20mm b/d. Growth in gasoline demand specifically also has slowed, but, again, this is occurring in a market where the level of demand remains high, pushing toward 10mm b/d, which is a mere 2.5% below record demand set in August of last year (Chart 7). Chart 5Expect Global Demand##BR##To Remain Stout Expect Global Demand to Remain Stout Expect Global Demand to Remain Stout Chart 6The Level Of U.S. Product##BR##Demand Remains High The Level Of U.S. Product Demand Remains High The Level Of U.S. Product Demand Remains High Chart 7U.S. Gasoline Demand##BR##Also Remains Stout U.S. Gasoline Demand Also Remains Stout U.S. Gasoline Demand Also Remains Stout 2018 Getting Foggy Uncertainty surrounding the evolution of the oil market next year is growing. The EIA believes markets will tighten in 3Q17, but then get progressively looser going into 2018, apparently disregarding OPEC 2.0's efforts to date, and the high likelihood - in our view - that the coalition will maintain production discipline for the most part (Chart 8). Combined with the robust demand growth BCA and the EIA expect, we get a fairly balanced market next year (Chart of the Week). U.S. shale-oil production, once again, will dictate just how tight markets become next year. Presently, we have average 2018 U.S. shale production in the Big 4 basins - Bakken, Eagle Ford, Niobrara, and the Permian - coming in more than 1mm b/d over 2017 levels. However, the recent sell-off that took WTI into bear-market territory this week could have a profound effect on shale-drilling activity next year, if it persists. Recent econometric work we've done confirms rig counts in the Big 4 plays are highly sensitive to WTI price. A prolonged stretch below $45/bbl could reduce rig counts by as much as 40% next year, especially if private-equity-backed companies cut spending. With hedging levels down, this is not a trivial concern (Chart 9).5 If prices stay depressed for any length of time for whatever reason - an outcome we do not expect - U.S. shale drilling activity could once again plummet. Chart 8EIA Fades OPEC 2.0's Resolve,##BR##BCA Does Not EIA Fades OPEC 2.0's Resolve, BCA Does Not EIA Fades OPEC 2.0's Resolve, BCA Does Not Chart 9Weak Prices Could##BR##Reduce Shale Rig Counts Weak Prices Could Reduce Shale Rig Counts Weak Prices Could Reduce Shale Rig Counts In addition, low prices also increase fiscal stress levels in petro-state revenues. This is of particular concern for KSA and Russia. The former is almost wholly dependent on oil revenues to fund its budgets, and will be looking to IPO its state-owned oil company, Aramco, next year. The latter is heavily dependent on oil and gas revenues, and will be holding an election in mid-March, just ahead of the expiry of the OPEC 2.0 production-cut extensions. The benchmark Russian crude, Urals, trades ~ $1.00 to $1.25/bbl under Brent, and any prolonged excursion into the low-$40s by Brent would stress the state's revenues. This is not our base case, but it is worthwhile considering. This mutual dependence on oil prices to support their respective economies is what compels strong compliance with the OPEC 2.0 production deal. Bottom Line: Our updated balances modeling continues to support our view global oil storage will draw, with OECD inventories likely falling below five-year average levels by year-end or early next year. Self-reported compliance with OPEC 2.0's production-cutting agreement exceeds 100%, implying the coalition is tracking to a 1.9mm b/d reduction in crude-oil output at present. On the demand side, even after upward revisions to 2015 and 2016 demand figures by the U.S. EIA, liquids consumption still is expected to grow on average ~ 1.6mm b/d this year and next. Cuts in production by OPEC 2.0 this year are more than sufficient to offset increases in Libyan and U.S. production, leaving overall production below consumption globally by close to 900k b/d, which will ensure inventories draw. For next year, after storage draws have abated, we expect supply and demand to be roughly balanced. We continue to expect Brent prices to trade to $60/bbl by year-end, and, on that basis, are recommending a long Dec/17 $50/bbl Brent call vs. short a Dec/17 $55/bbl Brent call. Longer term, our central tendency for price remains $55/bbl, with a range of $45 to $65/bbl prevailing most of the time. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 We are using the front-line WTI futures contract, which hit its recent high on Feb. 23 at $54.45/bbl (last price) and traded down to $43.23/bbl on June 20, registering a drop of 20.6%. First-line Brent has yet to fall more than 20% from its recent high of $57.10/bbl on Jan. 6 to $46.02/bbl on June 20 (a 19.4% drop). 2 Measuring against peak production - rather than the October levels referenced by OPEC 2.0 coalition members - is an inherently more conservative way of assessing the effect of the production cuts. 3 Please see "OPEC, non-OPEC compliance with oil cuts hits highest in May: source," published by reuters.com on June 21, 2017. 4 An uptick in Nigerian production also is cited by some observers as a cause for concern vis-à-vis slowing the normalization of global storage levels. However, as Chart 4 illustrates, that country's production remains on either side of 1.5mm b/d, more than 500k b/d below recent steady-state levels. 5 Looking at rig-count sensitivity to prices and rig productivity, we find a 1% increase (decrease) in nearby prices translates into a roughly 70bp increase (decrease) in rig counts, while a 1% increase (decrease) in lagged, deferred WTI futures prices (out to 3 years forward) translates into a 2% change in the same direction. The R2 coefficients of determination for the models we estimated average ~ 0.95. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016 Time For "Whatever It Takes" In Oil? Time For "Whatever It Takes" In Oil?

Highlights This week, Commodity & Energy Strategy is publishing a joint report with our colleagues at BCA's Energy Sector Strategy. Driven by the leadership of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia, OPEC 2.0 formalized the well-telegraphed decision to extend its production cuts for another nine months, carrying the cuts through the seasonally weak demand period of Q1 2018. The extension is will be successful in bringing OECD inventories down to normalized levels, even assuming some compliance fatigue (cheating) setting in later this year. Energy: Overweight. We are getting long Dec/17 WTI vs. short Dec/18 WTI at tonight's close, given our expectation OPEC 2.0's extension of production cuts, and lower exports by KSA to the U.S., will cause the U.S. crude-oil benchmark to backwardate. Base Metals: Neutral. Despite "catastrophic flooding" in March, 1Q17 copper output in Peru grew almost 10% yoy to close to 564k MT, according to Metal Bulletin. This occurred despite strikes at Freeport-McMoRan's Cerro Verde mine, where production was down 20.5% yoy in March. Precious Metals: Neutral. Our strategic gold portfolio hedge is up 2.61% since it was initiated on May 4, 2017. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The USDA's Crop Progress report indicates plantings are close to five-year averages, despite harsh weather in some regions. We remain bearish. Feature Chart 1Real OPEC Cuts Of ~1.0 MMb/d##BR##For Over 400 Days Real OPEC Cuts Of ~1.0 MMb/d For Over 400 Days Real OPEC Cuts Of ~1.0 MMb/d For Over 400 Days OPEC 2.0's drive to normalize inventories by early 2018 will be accomplished with last week's agreement to extend current production cuts through March 2018. In total, OPEC has agreed to remove over 1 MMb/d of producible OPEC oil from the market for over 400 days (Chart 1), supplemented by an additional 200,000-300,000 b/d of voluntary restrictions of non-OPEC oil through Q3 2017 at least, perhaps longer if Russia can resist the temptation to cheat after oil prices start to respond. Many of the participants in the cut, from both OPEC and non-OPEC, are not actually reducing output voluntarily, but have had quotas set for them that merely reflect the natural decline of their productive capacity, limitations that will be even more pronounced in H2 2017 than in H1 2017. With production restricted by the OPEC 2.0 cuts, global demand growth will outpace supply expansion by another wide margin in 2017, just as it did last year (Chart 2). As shown in Chart 3, steady demand expansion and the slowdown in supply growth allowed oil markets to move from oversupplied in 2015 to balanced during 2016; demand growth will increasingly outpace production growth in 2017, creating sharp inventory draws (Chart 4) that bring stocks down to normalized levels by the end of 2017 (Chart 5). Chart 2 Chart 3Production Cuts And Demand##BR##Growth Will Draw Inventories Production Cuts And Demand Growth Will Draw Inventories Production Cuts And Demand Growth Will Draw Inventories Chart 4Higher Global Inventory##BR##Withdrawals Through Rest Of 2017 Higher Global Inventory Withdrawals Through Rest Of 2017 Higher Global Inventory Withdrawals Through Rest Of 2017 Chart 5OECD Inventories To Be##BR##Reduced To Normal OECD Inventories To Be Reduced To Normal OECD Inventories To Be Reduced To Normal The extension of the cut through Q1 2018 will help prevent a premature refilling of inventories during the seasonally weak first quarter next year. The return of OPEC 2.0's production to full capacity in Q2 2018 will drive total production growth above total demand growth for 2018, returning oil markets from deliberately undersupplied during 2017 to roughly balanced markets in 2018, with stable inventory levels that are below the rolling five-year average. 2018 inventory levels will still be 5-10% above the average from 2010-2014, in line with the ~7% demand growth between 2014 and 2018. Compliance Assessment: Only A Few Players Matter In OPEC 2.0 OPEC's compliance with the cuts announced in November 2016 has been quite good, with KSA anchoring the cuts by surpassing its 468,000 b/d cut commitment. In addition to KSA, OPEC is getting strong voluntary compliance from the other Middle Eastern producers (except Iraq), while producers outside the Middle East lack the ability to meaningfully exceed their quotas in any case. OPEC's Core Four Remain Solid. The core of the OPEC 2.0 agreement has delivered strong compliance with their announced cuts. Within OPEC, the core Middle East countries Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and UAE have delivered over 100% compliance of their 800,000 b/d agreed-to cuts. We expect these countries to continue to show strong solidarity with the voluntary cuts through March 2018 (Chart 6). Iraq And Iran Make Small/No Sacrifices. Iraq and Iran were not officially excluded from cuts, but they were not asked to make significant sacrifices either. We estimate Iran has little-to-no capability to materially raise production in 2017 anyhow, and KSA is leaning on Iraq to better comply with its small cuts. Chart 7 shows our projections for Iran and Iraq production levels through 2018. Chart 6KSA, Kuwait, Qatar & UAE Carrying##BR##The Load Of OPEC Cuts KSA, Kuwait, Qatar & UAE Carrying The Load Of OPEC Cuts KSA, Kuwait, Qatar & UAE Carrying The Load Of OPEC Cuts Chart 7Iran And Iraq Production##BR##Near Full Capacity Iran And Iraq Production Near Full Capacity Iran And Iraq Production Near Full Capacity Iraq surged its production above 4.6 MMb/d for two months between OPEC's September 2016 indication that a cut would be coming and the late-November formalization of the cut. Iraq's quota of 4.35 MMb/d is nominally a 210,000 b/d cut from its surged November reference level, but is essentially equal to the country's production for the first nine months of 2016, implying not much of a real cut. Despite the low level of required sacrifice, Iraq has produced about 100,000 b/d above its quota so far in 2017 at a level we estimate is near/at its capacity anyway. KSA and others in OPEC are not pleased with Iraq's overproduction and have pressured it to comply with the agreement. We forecast Iraq will continue producing at 4.45 MMb/d. Iran's quota represented an allowed increase in production, reflecting the country's continued recovery from years of economic sanctions. We project Iran will continue to slowly expand production, but since the country is almost back up to pre-sanction levels, there is little remaining easily-achievable recovery potential. South American & African OPEC Capacity Eroding On Its Own. Chart 8 clearly shows how production levels in Venezuela, Angola and Algeria started to deteriorate well before OPEC formalized its production cuts, with productive capacity eroded by lack of reinvestment rather than voluntary restrictions. The quotas for these three countries (as well as for small producers Ecuador and Gabon) are counted as ~258,000 b/d of "cuts" in OPEC's agreement, but they merely represent the declines in production that should be expected anyway. With capacity deteriorating and no ability to ramp up anyway, these OPEC nations will deliver improving "compliance" (i.e. under-producing their quotas) in H2 2017, and are happy to have the higher oil prices created by the extension of production cuts by the core producers within OPEC 2.0. Libya and Nigeria Exclusions Unlikely To Result In Big Production Gains. Both Libyan and Nigerian production levels have been constrained by above-ground interference. Libyan production has been held below 1.0 MMb/d since 2013 principally by chronic factional fighting for control of export terminals, while Nigerian production--on a steady natural decline since 2010--has been further limited by militants sabotaging pipelines in 2016-2017. While each country has ebbs and flows to the amount of oil they are able to produce, we view both countries' problems as persistent risks that will continue to keep production below full potential (Chart 9). Chart 8 Chart 9Libya And Nigeria Production Could Go Higher##BR##Under Right (But Unlikely) Circumstances Libya And Nigeria Production Could Go Higher Under Right (But Unlikely) Circumstances Libya And Nigeria Production Could Go Higher Under Right (But Unlikely) Circumstances For Nigeria, we estimate the country's crude productive capacity has eroded to about 1.8 MMb/d from 2.0 MMb/d five years ago due to aging fields and a substantial reduction in drilling (offshore drilling is down ~70% since 2013). Within another year or two, this capacity will dwindle to 1.7 MMb/d or below. On top of this natural decline, we have projected continued sabotage / militant obstruction will limit actual crude output to an average of 1.55 MMb/d for the foreseeable future. Libyan production averaged just 420,000 b/d for 2014-2016, a far cry from the 1.65 MMb/d produced prior to the 2011 Libyan Revolution that ousted strongman Muammar Gaddafi. Since Gaddafi was deposed and executed, factional strife and conflict has persisted. Each faction wants control over oil export revenues and, just as importantly, wants to deny the opposition those revenues, resulting in a chronic state of conflict that has limited production and exports. If a détente were reached, we expect Libyan oil production could quickly rise to about 1.0 MMb/d of production within six months; however, we put the odds of a sustainable détente at less than 30%. As such, we forecast Libyan crude production will continue to struggle, averaging about 600,000 b/d in 2017-2018. Non-OPEC Cuts Hang On Russia In November, ten non-OPEC countries nominally agreed to restrict production by a total of 558,000 b/d, but Russia--with 300,000 b/d of pledged cuts--is the big fish that KSA and OPEC are relying on. Mexico's (and several others') agreements are window dressing, reframing natural production declines as voluntary action to rebalance markets. Through H1 2017, Russia has delivered on about 60-70% of its cut agreement, with compliance growing in Q2 (near 100%) versus Q1 (under 50%). From the start, Russia indicated it would require some time to work through the physical technicalities of lowering production to its committed levels, implying that now that production has been lowered, Russia could deliver greater compliance over H2 2017 than it delivered in H1 2017. We are a little more skeptical, expecting some weakening in Russia's compliance by Q4, especially if the extended cuts deliver the expected results of bringing down OECD inventories and lifting prices. Russia surprised us with stronger-than-expected production during 2016. Some of the outperformance was clearly due to a lower currency and improved shale-like drilling results in Western Siberia, but it is unclear whether producers also pulled too hard on their fields to compensate for lower prices, and are using the OPEC 2.0 cut as a way to rest their fields a bit. We have estimated Russian production returning to 11.3 MMb/d by Q4 2017 (50,000 b/d higher than 2016 average production) and holding there through 2018 (Chart 10), but actual volumes could deviate from this level by as much as 100,000-200,000 b/d. Mexico, the second largest non-OPEC "cutter," is in a position similar to Angola, Algeria, and Venezuela. Mexican production has been falling for years (Chart 11), and the nation's pledge to produce 100,000 b/d less in H1 2017 than in Q4 2016 is merely a reflection of this involuntary decline. As it has happened, Mexican production has declined by only ~60,000 b/d below its official reference level, but continues to deteriorate, promising higher "compliance" with their production pledge in H2 2017. Chart 10Russia Expected##BR##To Cheat By Q4 Russia Expected To Cheat By Q4 Russia Expected To Cheat By Q4 Chart 11Mexican Production Deterioration##BR##Unaffected By Cut Pledges Mexican Production Deterioration Unaffected By Cut Pledges Mexican Production Deterioration Unaffected By Cut Pledges Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan are not complying with any cuts, and we don't expect them to. Despite modest pledges of 55,000 b/d cuts combined, the two countries have produced ~80,000 b/d more during H1 2017 than they did in November 2016. We don't expect any voluntary contributions from these nations in the cut extension, but Azerbaijan's production is expected to wane naturally (Chart 12). While contributing only a small cut of 45,000 b/d, Oman has diligently adhered to its promised cuts, supporting its OPEC and Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) neighbors. We expect Oman's excellent compliance will be faithfully continued through the nine-month extension (Chart 13). Chart 12Kazakhstan And Azerbaijan Not Expected##BR##To Comply With Any Cut Extension Kazakhstan And Azerbaijan Not Expected To Comply With Any Cut Extension Kazakhstan And Azerbaijan Not Expected To Comply With Any Cut Extension Chart 13Oman Has Faithfully Complied##BR##With Cut Promises To Date Oman Has Faithfully Complied With Cut Promises To Date Oman Has Faithfully Complied With Cut Promises To Date OPEC Extension Will Continue To Support Increased Shale Drilling Energy Sector Strategy believed OPEC's original cut announced in November 2016 was a strategic mistake for the cartel, as it would accelerate the production recovery from U.S. shales in return for "only" six months of modestly-higher OPEC revenue. As we cautioned at the time, the promise of an OPEC-supported price floor was foolish for them to make; instead, OPEC should have let the risk of low prices continue to restrain shale and non-Persian Gulf investment, allowing oil markets to rebalance more naturally. However, despite our unfavorable opinion of the strategic value of the original cut, since the cut has not delivered the type of OECD inventory reductions expected (seemingly due to a larger-than-expected transfer of non-OECD inventories into OECD storage), we view the extension of the cut as a necessary, and logical, next step. OPEC 2.0's November 2016 cut agreement signaled to the world that OPEC (and Russia) would abandon KSA's professed commitment to a market share war, and would instead work together to support a ~$50/bbl floor under the price of oil. Such a price floor dramatically reduced the investment risk for shale drilling, and emboldened producers (and supporting capital markets) to pour money into vastly increased drilling programs. Now that the shale investment genie has already been let out of the bottle, extending the cuts is unlikely to have nearly the same stimulative impact on shale spending as the original paradigm-changing cut created. The shale drilling and production response has been even greater than we estimated six months ago, and surely greater than OPEC's expectations. The current horizontal (& directional) oil rig count of 657 rigs is nearly twice the 2016 average of 356 rigs, is 60% higher than the level of November 2016 (immediately before the cut announcement), and is still rising at a rate of 25-30 rigs per month (Chart 14). The momentum of these expenditures will carry U.S. production higher through YE 2017 even if oil prices were allowed to crash today. Immediately following OPEC's cut, we estimated 2017 U.S. onshore production could increase by 100,000 - 200,000 b/d over levels estimated prior to the cut, back-end weighted to H2 2017, with a greater 300,000-400,000 b/d uplift to 2018 production levels. Drilling activity has roared back so much faster than we had expected, indicative of the flooding of the industry with external capital, that we have raised our 2017 production estimate by 500,000 b/d over our December estimate, and raised our 2018 production growth estimate to 1.0 MMb/d (Chart 15). Chart 14Rig Count Recovery Dominated##BR##By Horizontal Drilling Rig Count Recovery Dominated By Horizontal Drilling Rig Count Recovery Dominated By Horizontal Drilling Chart 15Onshore U.S. Production##BR##Estimates Rising Sharply Onshore U.S. Production Estimates Rising Sharply Onshore U.S. Production Estimates Rising Sharply Other Guys' Decline Requires Greater Growth From OPEC, Shales, And Russia We've written before about "the Other Guys' in the oil market, defined as all producers outside of the expanding triumvirate of 1) U.S. shales, 2) Russia, and 3) Middle East OPEC. While the growers receive the vast majority of investors' focus, the Other Guys comprise nearly half of global production and have struggled to keep production flat over the past several years (Chart 16). Chart 17 shows the largest offshore basins in the world, which should suffer accelerated declines in 2019-2020 (and likely beyond) as the cumulative effects of spending constraints during 2015-2018 (and likely beyond) result in an insufficient level of projects coming online. This outlook requires increasing growth from OPEC, Russia and/or the shales to offset the shrinkage of the Other Guys and simultaneously meet continued demand growth. Chart 16The Other Guys' Production##BR##Struggling To Keep Flat The Other Guys' Production Struggling To Keep Flat The Other Guys' Production Struggling To Keep Flat Chart 17 Risks To Rebalancing Our expectation global oil inventories will draw, and that prices will, as a result, migrate toward $60/bbl by year-end is premised on the continued observance of production discipline by OPEC 2.0. GCC OPEC - KSA, Kuwait, Qatar, and the UAE - Russia and Oman are expected to observe their pledged output reduction, but we are modeling some compliance "fatigue" all the same. Even so, this will not prevent visible OECD oil inventories from falling to their five-year average levels by year-end or early next year. Obviously, none of this can be taken for granted. We have consistently highlighted the upside and downside risks to our longer term central tendency of $55/bbl for Brent crude, with an expected trading range of $45 to $65/bbl out to 2020. Below, we reprise these concerns and our thoughts concerning OPEC 2.0's future. Major Upside Risks Chief among the upside risks remains a sudden loss of supply from a critical producer and exporter like Venezuela or Nigeria, which, respectively, we expect will account for 1.9 and 1.5 MMb/d of production over the 2017-18 period. Losing either of these exporters would sharply rally prices above $65/bbl as markets adjusted and brought new supply on line. Other states - notably Algeria and Iraq - highlight the risk of sustained production losses due to a combination of internal strife and lack of FDI due to civil unrest. Algeria already appears to have entered into a declining production phase, while Iraq - despite its enormous potential - remains dogged by persistent internal conflict. We are modeling a sustained, slow decline in Algeria's output this year and next, which takes its output from 1.1 MMb/d in 2015 down to slightly more than 1 MMb/d on average this year and next. For Iraq, where we expect a flattening of production at ~ 4.4 MMb/d this year and a slight uptick to ~ 4.45 MMb/d in 2018, continued violence arising from dispersed terrorism in that country in the wake of a defeat of ISIS as an organized force, will remain an ongoing threat to production. Longer term - i.e., beyond 2018 - we remain concerned the massive $1-trillion-plus cutbacks in capex for projects that would have come online between 2015 and 2020 brought on by the oil-price collapse in 2015-16 will force prices higher to encourage the development of new supplies. The practical implication of this is some 7 MMb/d of oil-equivalent production the market will need, as this decade winds down, will have to be supplied by U.S. shales, Gulf OPEC and Russia, as noted above. Big, long-lead-time deep-water projects requiring years to develop cannot be brought on fast enough to make up for supply that, for whatever reason, fails to materialize from these sources. In addition, as shales account for more of global oil supplies and "The Other Guys" continue to lose production to higher depletion rates, more and more shale - in the U.S. and, perhaps, Russia - and conventional Persian Gulf production will have to be brought on line simply to make up for accelerating declines. This evolution of the supply side is significantly different from what oil and capital markets have been accustomed to in previous cycles. Because of this, these markets do not have much historical experience on which to base their expectations vis-à-vis global supply adjustment and the capacity these sources of supply have for meeting increasing demand and depletion rates. Lower-Cost Production, Demand Worries On The Downside Downside risks, in our estimation, are dominated by higher production risks. Here, we believe the U.S. shales and Russia are the principal risk factors, as the oil industry in both states is, to varying degrees, privately held. Because firms in these states answer to shareholders, it must be assumed they will operate for the benefit of these interests. So, if their marginal costs are less than the market-clearing price of oil, we can expect them to increase production up to the point at which marginal cost is equal to marginal revenue. The very real possibility firms in these countries move the market-clearing price to their marginal cost level cannot be overlooked. For the U.S., this level is below $53/bbl or so for shale producers. For Russian producers, this level likely is lower, given their production costs are largely incurred in rubles, and revenues on sales into the global market are realized in USD; however, given the variability of the ruble, this cost likely is a moving target. While a sharp increase in unconventional production presently not foreseen either in the U.S. or Russian shales will remain a downside price risk, an increase in conventional output - chiefly in Libya - remains possible. As discussed above, we believe this is a low risk to prices at present; however, if an accommodation with insurgent forces in the country can be achieved, output in Libya could double from the 600k b/d of production we estimate for this year and next. We reiterate this is a low-risk probability (less than 25%), but, in the event, would prove to be significant additions to global balances over the short term requiring a response from OPEC 2.0 to keep Brent prices above $50/bbl. Also on the downside, an unexpected drop in demand remains at the top of many lists. This is a near-continual worry for markets, which can be occasioned by fears of weakening EM oil-demand growth from, e.g., a hard landing in China, or slower-than-expected growth in India. These are the two most important states in the world in terms of oil-demand growth, accounting for more than one-third of global growth this year and next. We do not expect either to meaningfully slow; however, we continue to monitor growth in both closely.1 In addition, we continue to expect robust global oil-demand growth, averaging 1.56 MMb/d y/y growth in 2017 and 2018. This compares with 1.6 MMb/d growth last year. OPEC 2.0's Next Move Knowing the OPEC 2.0 production cuts will be extended to March 2018 does not give markets any direction for what to expect after this extension expires. Once the deal expires, we expect production to continue to increase from the U.S. shales, and for the key OPEC states to resume pre-cut production levels. Along with continued growth from Russia, this will be necessary to meet growing demand and increasing depletion rates from U.S. shales and "The Other Guys." Yet to be determined is whether OPEC 2.0 needs to remain in place after global inventories return to long-term average levels, or whether its formation and joint efforts were a one-off that markets will not require in the future. Over the short term immediately following the expiration of the production-cutting deal next year, OPEC 2.0 may have to find a way to manage its production to accommodate U.S. shales without imperiling their own revenues. This would require a strategy that keeps the front of the WTI and Brent forward curves at or below $60/bbl - KSA's fiscal breakeven price and $20/bbl above Russia's budget price - and the back of the curve backwardated, in order to exert some control over the rate at which shale rigs return to the field.2 As we've mentioned in the past, we have no doubt the principal negotiators in OPEC 2.0 continue to discuss this. Toward the end of this decade, such concerns might be moot, if growing demand and accelerating decline curves require production from all sources be stepped up. Matt Conlan, Senior Vice President Energy Sector Strategy mattconlan@bcaresearchny.com Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see the May 18, 2017, issue of BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy article entitled "Balancing Oil-Shale's Resilience And OPEC 2.0's Production Cuts," in which we discuss the outlook for China's and India's growth. Together, these states account for more than 570k b/d of the 1.56 MMb/d growth we expect this year and next. The article is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 A backwardated forward curve is characterized by prompt prices exceeding deferred prices. Our research indicates a backwardated forward curve results in fewer rigs returning to the field than a flat or positively sloped forward curve. We explored this strategy in depth in the April 6, 2017, issue of BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy, in an article entitled "The Game's Afoot In Oil, But Which One?" It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016 Extending OPEC 2.0's Production Cuts Will Normalize Global Oil Inventories Extending OPEC 2.0's Production Cuts Will Normalize Global Oil Inventories Extending OPEC 2.0's Production Cuts Will Normalize Global Oil Inventories Extending OPEC 2.0's Production Cuts Will Normalize Global Oil Inventories

A combination of physical rebalancing in the oil markets and geopolitical risk have pushed oil prices above $50/bbl. We therefore close our recommendation - made jointly with BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy team - to long a December 2016 WTI $50/$55 call spread for a 106.3% gain.