October 13, 2016
Cooperation Week – October 16 to 22, 2016
Desjardins supports thousands of student retention and educational
success projects, sources of greater economic prosperity. For more
information, go to desjardins.com.
OPEC helps oil get back above US$50 a barrel
A few trend reversals have occurred in the commodity
market in the last few weeks. Faced with signs of soft
global oil demand and a surge in output by members of
the Organization for the Petroleum Exporting Countries
(OPEC), West Texas Intermediate fell to around US$43
in mid-September. A surprise agreement from OPEC
countries to curb output, however, made oil prices rebound
above US$50 a barrel in early October. Conversely, precious
metal prices have dropped sharply in the last few weeks, as
investors are starting to worry that the central banks will
begin cutting back on their intervention (graph 1).
Graph 1 – The last few weeks have been better for oil than gold
US$/barrel
US$/ounce
55
1,400
50
1,350
1,300
45
1,250
40
1,200
35
1,150
30
WTI* oil prices (left)
Gold prices (right)
25
Aside from the recent movements in oil and precious
metals, commodity prices have been relatively stable in
recent months. Although, overall, resource prices are
generally still low, prices for most commodities have made
substantial advances from where they were at the start
of 2016, in contrast with the general tumbles recorded
in 2014 and 2015 (graph 2). The increase is bigger still if we
compare current prices with the February 2016 lows. The
correction that began in mid‑2014 thus seems to be over and
we can hope that commodity prices will continue to rise
gradually in 2017.
Jan.
2016
Feb.
March
April
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
1,100
1,050
Oct.
* West Texas Intermediate.
Sources: Datastream, Bloomberg and Desjardins, Economic Studies
Graph 2 – After a 2-year correction, we are seeing an almost
widespread rise by resource prices
In %
2014
François Dupuis
Vice-President and Chief Economist
In %
Change in the Bloomberg Commodity Index
30
2015
30
Since the start of 2016
15
15
0
0
-15
-15
-30
-30
-45
-45
Total
Mathieu D’Anjou, CFA
Senior Economist
Energy
Industrial
metals
Precious metals
Grains
Sources: Datastream and Desjardins, Economic Studies
Contents
Energy................................................................................2
Base metals.......................................................................4
Precious metals.................................................................6
Other commodities.............................................................7
Tables.................................................................................8
François Dupuis
Vice-President and Chief Economist
Mathieu D’Anjou
Senior Economist
Jimmy Jean
Senior Economist 514-281-2336 or 1 866 866-7000, ext. 2336
E-mail: [email protected]
Hendrix Vachon
Senior Economist
Note to readers: The letters k, M and B are used in texts and tables to refer to thousands, millions and billions respectively.
I mportant: This document is based on public information and may under no circumstances be used or construed as a commitment by Desjardins Group. While the information provided has been determined on the basis of data obtained from sources that
are deemed to be reliable, Desjardins Group in no way warrants that the information is accurate or complete. The document is provided solely for information purposes and does not constitute an offer or solicitation for purchase or sale. Desjardins Group
takes no responsibility for the consequences of any decision whatsoever made on the basis of the data contained herein and does not hereby undertake to provide any advice, notably in the area of investment services. The data on prices or margins are
provided for information purposes and may be modified at any time, based on such factors as market conditions. The past performances and projections expressed herein are no guarantee of future performance. The opinions and forecasts contained herein
are, unless otherwise indicated, those of the document’s authors and do not represent the opinions of any other person or the official position of Desjardins Group. Copyright © 2016, Desjardins Group. All rights reserved.
October 2016
Commodity Trends
www.desjardins.com/economics
ENERGY
The OPEC agreement could have a positive,
yet limited impact
OIL
•
•
•
•
Oil prices have seesawed in the last few months (graph 3).
West Texas Intermediate (WTI) fell to around US$40 a barrel
in early August, then quickly climbed to around US$48.
Prices then softened again when slightly weaker global
demand in combination with a big surge in output from
the Organization for the Petroleum Exporting Countries
(OPEC) prompted the International Energy Agency to
predict that a slight surplus could persist in the global oil
market. Oil prices fell, going to US$43 in mid-September,
then rebounded again, even crossing above US$50 a barrel
following a surprise OPEC agreement to limit oil supply. Like
oil prices, gasoline prices fluctuated with no clear trend in
the last few months, then strengthened recently.
After several months of fruitless efforts, the members of the
OPEC finally reached an agreement at their September 27
meeting in Algiers. Output by these countries recently hit
approximately 33.5 mbd (millions of barrels per day); the
agreement aims to take it down between 32.5 mbd and
33.0 mbd. We will have to wait until the agreement is finalized
at OPEC’s November meeting for it to start having a real
impact on oil production. In the meantime, OPEC will try to
persuade other countries, particularly Russia, to curb their
output as well. Although obstacles remain, an agreement
seems possible because it would not be too limiting for the
major signatories. Saudi Arabia, Iran and even Russia have
boosted output sharply in the last few months (graph 4), and
a freeze or even slight decline would leave their production
at a very comfortable level.
Although it does not represent a major change in strategy,
with the signing nations apparently determined to keep
defending their market shares, ratifying the agreement
would be good for oil prices in the near term. It would limit the
risk that these nations, especially Saudi Arabia, would keep
increasing output. It could even help balance the supply and
demand for oil in 2017 (graph 5), as the International Energy
Agency’s forecast for a slight surplus assumed that OPEC
would keep increasing its output. The agreement between
OPEC countries should, however, have little impact on oil
prices over the medium term, especially as these countries
have frequently flouted their commitments in the past.
The evolution of U.S. oil output will be a lot more critical
for oil prices. The recent news there has also been fairly
favourable to higher prices, as the weekly figures are still
generally showing a drop in oil production, despite the
upswing in drilling, and a decline in oil inventories. This
supports our view that there will be no sustained upswing
in U.S. crude production until prices are clearly entrenched
above US$50 a barrel. A recent Dallas Federal Reserve
survey shows that most oil and gas companies think that
it would take a WTI price of between US$55 and US$69 a
barrel to drive drilling up (graph 6).
Graph 3 – Oil prices have risen in recent weeks
US$/barrel
US$/barrel
Oil prices
130
100
115
100
85
85
70
70
55
55
40
40
25
25
10
10
2013
2014
2015
2016
* West Texas Intermediate; ** Western Canada Select.
Sources: Datastream, Bloomberg and Desjardins, Economic Studies
Graph 4 – After boosting output substantially, Iran and
Saudi Arabia seem prepared to curb it
Millions of barrels/day
Millions of barrels/day
Crude oil output
11.0
4.2
4.0
10.5
3.8
10.0
3.6
9.5
3.4
9.0
3.2
3.0
8.5
2.8
8.0
2.6
7.5
2.4
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Saudi Arabia (left)
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Iran (right)
Sources: Bloomberg and Desjardins, Economic Studies
Graph 5 – An OPEC freeze could turn the slight oil surplus
forecast for 2017 into a slight deficit
Gap between
global oil supply and demand
Millions of barrels/day
0.8
Millions of barrels/day
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
Surplus
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
-0.2
-0.2
-0.4
-0.4
-0.6
-0.6
Deficit
-0.8
-0.8
-1.0
-1.0
Q1
2017
Q2
Forecasts with no agreement
Q3
Q4
OPEC output steady at 33 mbd
OPEC: Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries; mbd: millions of barrels per day
Sources: International Energy Agency and Desjardins, Economic Studies
2
130
Brent
WTI*
WCS**
115
Commodity Trends
October 2016
www.desjardins.com/economics
NATURAL GAS
•
Natural gas prices have fluctuated around US$3/MMBTU
(Million British Thermal Units) in recent months (graph 7).
They are about twice as high as the lows hit at the end of last
winter. Strong summer gas demand combined with stagnant
production took gas stocks, which had been overly high at
the end of last winter, much closer to normal (graph 8). As
seen with oil, the spectacular plunge in drilling in the last
few years had a major impact on natural gas production.
In this context, gas stocks could quickly drop below normal
if the coming winter is a cold one. The outcome of the
U.S. election could have an impact on natural gas prices, as
a Donald Trump victory would pave the way for overturning
several regulatory measures that limit coal use to the benefit
of natural gas, among other things.
Forecasts: If they really do curb output, OPEC countries
should manage to keep oil prices around US$50 a
barrel in the coming months. A credible commitment
from Russia to do the same could put additional upside
pressure on oil prices. The risk of a surge in concern over
the U.S. election or a strong rise by the U.S. dollar if the
Federal Reserve raises its key rates in December are,
however, major downside risks. In this context, we still
expect WTI to be around US$50 at the end of 2016. We
expect it to head toward US$60 by the end of 2017, making
a real upswing in U.S. output possible. Natural gas prices
could be volatile in the near term, especially once the first
indications of how cold the winter will be are available.
Graph 6 – Most U.S. producers think that a crude price between
US$55 and US$69 would kick start drilling
In % of respondents
35
In % of respondents
35
Price of WTI* needed for a substantial increase in U.S. oil drilling
30
30
25
25
20
20
15
15
10
10
5
5
0
0
49 or less
50–54
55–59
60–64
65–69
US$/barrel
70–74
75 or higher
* West Texas Intermediate.
Sources: Federal Reserve of Dallas and Desjardins, Economic Studies
Graph 7 – Natural gas prices
$ US/MMBTU*
8
$ US/MMBTU*
8
Natural gas
200-day average
7
7
6
6
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
* Million British Thermal Unit.
Sources: Datastream and Desjardins, Economic Studies
Graph 8 – Limited growth this summer put natural gas stocks
at more normal levels
In billions of cubic feet
In billions of cubic feet
4,500
4,500
4,000
4,000
3,500
3,500
Maximum*
3,000
3,000
2,500
2,500
2,000
2,000
1,500
1,500
1,000
500
1,000
Minimum*
2013
2014
2015
Average*
2016
Stocks
* From 2011 to 2015.
Sources: Energy Information Administration and Desjardins, Economic Studies
3
500
October 2016
Commodity Trends
www.desjardins.com/economics
BASE METALS
Still rising gradually
Unlike precious metals, the greenback’s recent upswing
and monetary firming expectations in the United States had
little impact on industrial metals. The LME (London Metal
Exchange) index of industrial metal prices has even edged
up in the last few months, going to around 2,465. Although
this is still relatively weak, the index is up more than 20%
from its cyclical low at the start of 2016 (graph 9). We can
therefore say that industrial metal prices are now in a bull
market.
Industrial metal prices’ recent resilience, despite the
greenback’s appreciation, primarily seems to be based on
relatively favourable developments in the global demand for
metals, in the context of an ongoing limited supply. Fears
that the European economies would slow sharply after the
Brexit win dissipated quickly, and everything suggests the
U.S. economy has rebounded after a disappointing first
half. August’s tumble of the ISM indexes was a dark spot
in the U.S. economic picture, but it vanished when the
indexes rebounded the following month (graph 10). China’s
economic numbers have also been relatively encouraging in
the last few months, a prerequisite for an ongoing upswing
in base metal prices.
ALUMINUM
•
Aluminium prices have been fairly volatile in recent months.
They weakened at the end of the summer, and then shot
up in the last few weeks, going to US$1,686 a tonne, their
highest point in over a year (graph 11). Aluminium has
posted a noteworthy gain of better than 12% since the start
of the year. The rise in aluminium prices is primarily based
on good growth in demand for the metal. The outlook there
is positive, with many analysts expecting global aluminium
demand to grow 4% to 5% annually in the years to come.
Producers’ reaction must be watched, however, as an
overly rapid bounce back by production could curb the rise
in prices.
Index
Index
4,500
4,500
4,250
4,250
4,000
4,000
3,750
3,750
3,500
3,500
3,250
3,250
3,000
3,000
2,750
2,750
2,500
2,500
2,250
LMEX*
2,000
2010
2011
2,250
200-day average
2,000
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
* London Metal Exchange base metal price index.
Sources: Datastream and Desjardins, Economic Studies
Graph 10 – In the end, August’s tumble by the ISM indexes seems
to have been a false sign of weakness
Index
Index
60
60
58
58
56
56
54
54
52
52
50
50
48
48
46
46
2010
2011
2012
2013
ISM manufacturing
2014
2015
2016
ISM non-manufacturing
Sources: Institute for Supply Management and Desjardins, Economic Studies
Graph 11 – Aluminium prices and stocks
US$/tonne
In thousands of tonnes
6,000
2,800
5,500
2,600
COPPER
•
Graph 9 – Industrial metal prices keep rising slowly
Copper prices continued to lag behind most other industrial
metals, ticking down since the end of July. At around
US$4,800 a tonne, copper prices have been casting around
with no clear trend since the start of 2016. A surge in copper
inventories surveyed by the LME in recent months (graph 12),
with Chinese copper imports declining, contributed to the
metal’s disappointing performance. However, surging
inventories seems to be more of a reflection of a shift in
inventories between China and the rest of the world,
4
5,000
2,400
4,500
2,200
4,000
2,000
3,500
1,800
3,000
1,600
2,500
1,400
2010
2,000
2011
2012
2013
Price (left)
Sources: Datastream and Desjardins, Economic Studies
2014
2015
Stocks (right)
2016
Commodity Trends
October 2016
rather than the symptom of a major surplus in the global
copper market. Here, data from the International Copper
Study Group instead show a deficit in the first half of 2016,
with copper demand advancing by a lively 5%. Copper
output could outstrip demand in the second half of 2016,
but most analysts are predicting a deficit in 2017. Copper
prices are also more sensitive to financial variables; the
greenback’s recent renewed strength could have affected
them negatively.
www.desjardins.com/economics
Graph 12 – Copper prices and stocks
US$/tonne
In thousands of tonnes
700
10,000
625
9,000
550
8,000
475
400
7,000
325
6,000
NICKEL
5,000
•
4,000
Nickel prices have been moving with no clear trend since
the end of July. They have mostly stayed above US$10,000
a tonne, consolidating the gains made at the end of the
spring and start of summer (graph 13). Although still low,
nickel prices are up by nearly 20% from the start of 2016,
as inventories of the metal surveyed by the LME posted
a retreat of a similar magnitude. The shutdown of several
nickel mines in the Philippines for environmental reasons
is a major support for the metal’s price. An upswing in
Indonesia’s nickel exports could, however, make up for
the drop in the Philippines. Global nickel demand should
still outstrip production in the coming quarters, pointing to
further declines in stocks and paving the way for the metal’s
price to keep rising.
250
175
100
2010
2011
2012
2013
Price (left)
2014
2015
2016
Stocks (right)
Sources: Datastream and Desjardins, Economic Studies
Graph 13 – Nickel prices and stocks
US$/tonne
In thousands of tonnes
29,500
500
27,000
450
24,500
400
22,000
350
19,500
300
ZINC
17,000
250
•
14,500
200
12,000
150
9,500
100
Zinc prices continued to trend up, crossing back above
US$2,300 a tonne and even temporarily brushing US$2,400
(graph 14). Zinc prices have advanced about 45% since the
start of 2016, reflecting the emergence of a major deficit in
the global zinc market, given that prior price declines reined
in zinc production. The zinc market will remain in deficit in
the coming quarters, unless an overly rapid surge in prices
makes production bounce back.
Forecasts: Industrial metal prices will continue to be
highly tied to the health of the Chinese economy. Failing
nasty surprises there, the balance between global supply
and demand should justify an ongoing gradual rise of base
metal prices in the quarters to come. However, nothing
suggests that prices will skyrocket again.
7,000
50
2010
2011
2012
2013
Price (left)
2014
2015
2016
Stocks (right)
Sources: Datastream and Desjardins, Economic Studies
Graph 14 – Zinc prices and stocks
US$/tonne
In thousands of tonnes
2,750
1,300
1,200
2,500
1,100
1,000
2,250
900
800
2,000
700
1,750
600
500
1,500
400
1,250
300
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Price (left)
2015
Stocks (right)
Sources: Datastream and Desjardins, Economic Studies
5
2016
October 2016
Commodity Trends
www.desjardins.com/economics
PRECIOUS METALS
Major relapse
Following a very good summer, precious metal prices
retreated sharply in the last few weeks and gold prices
dropped back close to US$1,250 an ounce. This decline
primarily reflects the view that monetary policies may
become less favourable to these metals.
Graph 15 – U.S. key rate increase expectations are helping
the greenback and hurting gold
In %
Index
98
70
65
97
60
55
•
45
Gold prices stole the show in the first few months of 2016,
and they hit US$1,369 an ounce in early July, a peak that
dates back to March 2014, after the Brexit option’s surprise
win in the United Kingdom. The Brexit win initially seemed
to slam the door on any U.S. key rate increase before the
end of 2016. However, that perception did not last long,
with several Federal Reserve (Fed) leaders rapidly starting
to signal a desire to raise key rates soon. Investors now
expect a rate increase in December, which favours a
rising greenback (graph 15). The desire to raise key rates
reflects more encouraging U.S. numbers and a growing
concern among central bankers about the consequences of
extremely low interest rates. Signs that the Bank of Japan
and European Central Bank could curb their intervention
also played heavily against gold prices, taking them down
to around US$1,250 an ounce recently. Silver prices have
also retreated sharply (graph 16).
PLATINUM AND PALLADIUM
•
96
50
GOLD AND SILVER
Like gold and silver prices, platinum and palladium prices
have retreated sharply in the last few weeks. Platinum hit
US$1,182 an ounce in early August, then lost over 15%
to drop back below US$1,000 an ounce. During the same
period, palladium prices retreated by almost 10%. Despite
the last few weeks’ substantial drops, prices for the four
principal precious metals are still substantially higher than
where they started 2016.
Forecasts: It now seems the Fed will raise its key rates at
December’s meeting unless the November 8 U.S. election
sends too much upheaval into the markets. In this context,
precious metal prices could end the year a little lower than
we previously anticipated. Gold prices could keep pulling
back next year, with ongoing gradual monetary policy
normalization.
95
40
35
94
Aug.
Sept.
2016
Oct.
Probability of a U.S. key rate increase by the end of 2016 (left)
DXY U.S. dollar index (right)
Sources: Bloomberg and Desjardins, Economic Studies
Graph 16 – Gold and silver prices
US$/ounce
US$/ounce
50
2,000
Gold (left)
Silver (right)
1,800
45
40
35
1,600
30
1,400
25
20
1,200
15
10
1,000
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Sources: Datastream and Desjardins, Economic Studies
Graph 17 – Platinum and palladium prices
US$/ounce
US$/ounce
950
1,950
1,800
850
1,650
750
1,500
1,350
650
1,200
550
1,050
450
900
Platinum (left)
750
2010
2011
2012
Sources: Datastream and Desjardins, Economic Studies
6
2013
Palladium (right)
2014
2015
350
2016
October 2016
Commodity Trends
www.desjardins.com/economics
OTHER COMMODITIES
The abundant supply hurts agricultural prices
FOREST PRODUCTS
•
Forest product prices have not moved much in recent
months. Lumber prices are still around US$360/mbf
(thousand board feet), up about 12% from the start of 2016.
Signs that the U.S. economy is accelerating after a
disappointing first half and positive developments in
residential real estate are promising for future wood
demand. In particular, sales of new homes recently jumped
to their highest point in over 10 years in the United States;
an extended uptrend seems possible in the years to
come, as the home ownership rate there has dropped to a
several decades low (graph 18). The lack of progress in the
negotiations over a new lumber trade agreement between
Canada and the United States remains a sizable concern
for Canadian wood producers.
Graph 18 – A low home ownership rate paves the way
for construction to pick up
Ann. var. in %
Ann. var. in %
U.S. home ownership rate
70
70
69
69
68
68
67
67
66
66
65
65
64
64
63
63
62
1965
62
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau and Desjardins, Economic Studies
AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES
•
•
Prices for the main cereals continued to slide in recent months
(graph 19), with the excellent U.S. harvest translating into a
very abundant cereal supply. Not only have wheat, corn and
soybeans had an excellent year, but the world production of
other cereals, including rice, should set records. Low prices
seem to favour increased consumption of cereals, as shown
by the spectacular surge in U.S. soybean exports in the last
few months. Regardless, global stocks of most cereals
will increase again this year, suggesting that prices
could stay low in the coming years.
A major rebound in supply is also starting to affect livestock
prices (graph 20). Herds dwindled dramatically a few years
ago, but have been reconstituted, as the drop in cereal costs
and surge in meat prices have made animal production a
lot more profitable. The abundance of hogs and chickens,
and an upswing in the beef supply in the U.S. market are
now raising concern about a sharp drop in meat prices, as
happened with cereals.
Graph 19 – Cereal prices
US$/bushel
US$/bushel
10
18
9
17
16
8
15
7
14
6
13
5
12
11
4
10
3
9
8
2
2010
2011
2012
2013
Wheat (left)
2014
Corn (left)
2015
2016
Soybeans (right)
Sources: Datastream and Desjardins, Economic Studies
Graph 20 – It is now livestock’s turn to plunge
Index
43
Livestock component of the Bloomberg Commodity Index
Index
43
41
41
39
39
37
37
35
35
33
33
31
31
29
29
27
27
25
25
23
2013
23
2014
2015
Sources: Datastream and Desjardins, Economic Studies
7
2016
October 2016
Commodity Trends
www.desjardins.com/economics
Table 1
Commodities
Percentage return since
Spot price
Oct. 13
1 month
1 year
High
Average
Low
Index
1
2
Reuter-CRB (CCI )
1
Reuters/Jefferies CRB
Bloomberg Commodity Index
Bank of Canada
415.9
188.1
85.6
377.2
0.6
4.2
3.2
4.7
-4.3
-0.3
-1.5
1.8
6.5
7.1
5.4
10.5
2.2
-5.7
-4.8
1.5
436.9
199.8
90.1
388.7
398.9
179.9
82.4
347.9
353.7
155.0
72.9
281.8
Energy
Brent oil (US$/barrel)
WTI 3 oil (US$/barrel)
Gasoline (US$/gallon)
Natural gas (US$/MMBTU4)
51.9
50.1
2.27
3.17
9.8
11.6
3.2
3.6
12.0
11.7
0.8
12.8
16.9
20.2
9.8
60.1
4.6
7.4
-2.8
30.5
53.4
51.2
2.40
3.17
43.5
41.6
2.13
2.28
27.8
26.2
1.72
1.49
Base metals
5
LMEX
Aluminium (US$/tonne)
Copper (US$/tonne)
Nickel (US$/tonne)
Zinc (US$/tonne)
Steel (US$/tonne)
2,436
1,681
4,791
10,521
2,250
312.5
4.5
8.6
3.4
7.3
1.3
0.0
0.3
1.3
-2.6
2.1
3.6
0.0
5.9
8.6
-1.2
17.5
20.0
311.2
0.5
6.7
-9.4
0.8
25.2
61.9
2,474
1,687
5,329
10,815
2,404
312.5
2,288
1,554
4,762
9,266
1,886
202.7
2,049
1,426
4,328
7,562
1,455
75.5
Precious metals
Gold (US$/ounce)
Silver (US$/ounce)
Platinum (US$/ounce)
Palladium (US$/ounce)
1,252
17.4
947
651.0
-5.5
-9.0
-9.5
-0.9
-6.6
-14.0
-13.2
1.7
0.4
9.1
-4.7
20.3
7.3
11.7
-3.7
-5.2
1,369
20.7
1,182
730.0
1,224
16.6
979.2
594.6
1,052
13.6
814.0
470.0
Other commodities
Lumber (US$/tbf 6)
Pulp (US$/tonne)
Wheat (US$/bushel)
Corn (US$/bushel)
Soybean (US$/bushel)
358.0
995
3.82
3.13
9.14
2.0
-0.5
-1.5
1.0
-3.4
2.6
-0.5
-13.2
-8.7
-17.7
3.2
4.7
-18.4
-14.0
-2.0
17.4
3.6
-16.2
-14.9
2.1
369.0
1,000
5.25
4.18
11.57
337.3
965.4
4.38
3.50
9.43
305.0
940.0
3.44
2.88
8.40
1
Commodity Research Bureau; 2 Continuous Commodity Index;
Thousand of board feet.
Note: Currency table base on previous day closure.
6
3
3 months 6 months
Last 52 weeks
West Texas Intermediate;
4
Million British Thermal Unit;
5
London Metal Exchange Index;
Table 2
Commodities prices: history and forecasts
2014
2015
2016f
2017f
93
49
Target: 44
(range: 42 to 46)
Target: 55
(range: 46 to 64)
4.34
2.65
Target: 2.50
(range: 2.35 to 2.60)
Target: 3.25
(range: 2.60 to 3.80)
Gold (US$/ounce)
1,266
1,160
Target: 1,255
(range: 1,240 to 1,270)
Target: 1,200
(range: 1,150 to 1,325)
LMEX*** index—base metals
3,117
2,550
Target: 2,340
(range: 2,300 to 2,370)
Target: 2,700
(range: 2,300 to 3,100)
Annual average
WTI* oil (US$/barrel)
Natural gas Henry Hub
(US$/MMBTU**)
f: forecasts; * West Texas Intermediate; ** Million British Thermal Unit; *** London Metal Exchange Index.
Sources: Datastream and Desjardins, Economic Studies
8