Natural Gas Price Forecast Video for 10.04.23
Natural Gas Weekly Technical Analysis
Natural gas markets initially tried to rally during the week after gapping lower but gave back that strength rather quickly. By doing so, the market started to fall towards the crucial $2.00 level, a large, round, psychologically significant figure, and an area that has quite often been at the bottom of the summer range. That being said, it’s also worth noting that the market has seen a lot of noisy behavior, so it does make a certain amount of sense that volatility will remain.
The biggest problem with the longer-term trader is that the market has sold off so drastically that it’s difficult to imagine a scenario where you would have a decent setup. You would need to see some type of significant bounce for a longer-term trader to have a nice selling opportunity. If you are a longer-term trader, you are probably looking for a buying opportunity at this point, but that is more likely than not going to be something that you will have to wait several months for.
There is an argument to be made for the natural gas market to spike again next year, mainly due to the fact that the European Union still has a major shortage of natural gas for next year, and will have to go out on the open market to replenish supplies. Remember, the war in Ukraine is far from over, and Russia isn’t exactly collapsing. Because of this, the Europeans may have painted themselves into a corner, and we may see another big move to the upside. However, unlike last year we have the ability for Americans to come in and produce more liquefied natural gas for the EU. While prices should go higher eventually, we don’t have the signal and certainly are not there yet as far as the cycle is concerned. At this point, it’s still a “fade the rallies” market.
For a look at all of today’s economic events, check out our economic calendar.
This article was originally posted on FX Empire
More From FXEMPIRE:
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.
Source link
