WTI and Brent used to trade in line, but prices had diverged over the past few years
The spread between West Texas Intermediate (WTI) and Brent crude represents the difference between two crude benchmarks, with WTI more representing the price that US oil producers receive and Brent more representing the prices received internationally. The two crudes are of similar quality and theoretically should price very close to each other. However, the prices had differed greatly between the two crudes because a recent surge in production in the United States has caused a buildup of crude oil inventories at Cushing, Oklahoma, where WTI is priced. This created a supply and demand imbalance at the hub, causing WTI to trade lower than Brent. Before this increase in US oil production, the two crudes had historically traded in line with each other.
The above graph shows the WTI-Brent spread over the past few years. Note that when the spread moves wider, it generally means that crude producers based in the United States receive relatively less money for their oil production compared to their counterparts that are producing internationally.
Spread moved slightly narrower last week, but has drifted wider over the past few months
The WTI-Brent spread moved slightly narrower last week, moving from $9.26 per barrel on October 11 to $8.83 per barrel on October 18. Currently, the spread is trading around $10 per barrel, its widest level since early June.
WTI had been trading near par with Brent as recently as mid-July, but in late August and early September, the spread widened to nearly $8 per barrel. This was partly because supply from Libya had dropped sharply due to unrest. Plus, the escalation of tensions in Syria had caused traders to take bullish bets on the international oil benchmark of Brent crude and had also possibly driven the price differential between WTI and Brent. Recently, fears about Syria have eased somewhat, and production from Libya has started to recover. Spreads closed in again to ~$3 per barrel.
In recent weeks, the spread moved wider again, as data from the US Energy Information Administration showed that oil stocks at Cushing rose in early October, after fourteen weeks of falling. Maintenance on refineries could have hampered crude demand from the Cushing hub, though note that maintenance is a temporary event. Plus, much crude from the Bakken flows into Cushing, and production from the basin remained strong, which could have caused part of the build-up also.
Background: The WTI-Brent spread over 1H13
WTI had been trading as low as $23 per barrel under Brent in February of 2013. Over the course of the year, the spread narrowed due to several factors. Firstly, increased midstream infrastructure has come online, facilitating the movement of crude from inland to refiners on the coast. One notable example is the expansion of the Seaway Pipeline in January 2013, which allows more crude to flow from the Oklahoma crude hub at Cushing to the Gulf Coast, where a great amount of refining capacity sits. Plus, Sunoco’s Permian Express Pipeline and the reversal of Magellan Midstream Partners’ Longhorn Pipeline are allowing more crude from the Permian Basin in West Texas to flow directly to the Gulf Coast. Increased pipeline capacity and crude transportation by rail have also allowed inland domestic crude to more efficiently travel to refiners on the East and West coasts, which has also backed out Brent-like imports.
Lastly, US refineries began running at higher rates than earlier in the year, which caused increased demand for crude. Since spring 2013, many US refineries started to come back online from performing routine maintenance, and the EIA reported that in July, domestic refineries were running crude through their facilities at a rate of ~16.3 million barrels per day through June 2013. This is a ~2.1 million-barrel-a-day increase over the first week of March. Plus, new refining capacity opened up in the Gulf Coast, helping increase refiners’ demand for crude.
So the spread between WTI and Brent closed in through the year until the two crudes traded nearly at par in mid-July. Since then, the spread gradually widened to levels as wide as ~$10 per barrel currently.
The future of the Brent-WTI spread
As we’ve seen, WTI and Brent had historically traded at near par and reached near par at points earlier this year. However, given the structural change of significantly more oil being produced from the US (with projections of continued future growth), many market participants expect WTI to continue to trade under Brent. The US Energy Information Administration, for example, notes in its monthly report titled “Short Term Energy Outlook” that it expects a spread of ~$6 per barrel in 2014.
The EIA also noted in an article in June, “The future of the Brent-WTI price spread will be determined, in part, by the balance between future growth in US crude production and the capacity of crude oil infrastructure to move that crude to US refiners.” One such major piece of infrastructure is expected to come online in the next few weeks. TransCanada Corp., a midstream company, announced that the southern portion of the Keystone XL pipeline, a 700,000-barrel-per-day pipeline from Cushing, Oklahoma, to Nederland, Texas, will be completed in early November and will begin filling the line shortly afterwards. The completion of the pipeline brings on significant capacity to move crude oil away from Cushing towards seaborne markets and it could bring the spread tighter.
The spread’s effect on oil companies
When WTI trades below Brent, this generally means that companies with oil production concentrated in the United States will realize lower prices compared to their international counterparts, as WTI is the de facto US benchmark and Brent is the international benchmark.
For example, see the table below for a comparison of oil prices realized by US-concentrated companies versus companies with a global production profile.
|2Q13 Average Price Per Barrel|
|BENCHMARK OIL PRICES|
|West Texas Intermediate||$94.12|
|2Q13 Realized Oil Prices Per Barrel (excluding hedge gains/losses)|
|Chesapeake Energy (CHK)||$92.53|
|Concho Resources (CXO)||$89.87|
|Range Resources (RRC)||$83.87|
|Oasis Petroleum (OAS)||$91.15|
|Total Corp. (TOT)||$96.60|
From an investment point of view, if Brent is expected to continue to trade significantly above WTI, you might favor buying oil names that receive crude prices closer to the Brent benchmark than the WTI benchmark. Generally, this would represent oil names with more international production relative to domestic (US) production.
Monitor the spread
Investors may want to monitor the spread, as a wider spread may make international producers more attractive relative to domestic producers. The difference between Brent and WTI has caused domestic producers such as those mentioned in the above table (CHK, CXO, RRC, and OAS) to realize lower prices on oil compared to international producers. But over the medium term, the spread has closed dramatically and now signals better takeaway capacity for inland US oil. Investors should note that many international names are in the XLE ETF (Energy Select Sector SPDR), an ETF (exchange-traded fund) whose holdings are primarily large-cap energy stocks with significant international exposure.
© 2013 Market Realist, Inc.
But if I knew how to manage my portfolio safer and smarter than most hedge fund managers, I could realistically grow my wealth.