Showing posts sorted by relevance for query LNG. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query LNG. Sort by date Show all posts

Friday, July 14, 2023

LNG’s future unclear as conference kicks off in Vancouver

Story by The Canadian Press • Yesterday 

The world’s largest liquefied natural gas (LNG) conference kicked off on Monday in Vancouver, and with it comes uncertainty over the long-term viability of gas export projects in development in Canada.

The conference, which runs until Thursday, takes place as multiple LNG projects are in the early stages of development on the West Coast, including the First Nations-led Cedar LNG in Kitimat, B.C., that will export gas to Asian markets. The Haisla Nation is invested in the project.

The next two to three years will be critical in deciding the fate of Cedar LNG, Robert Johnston, executive director at the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University, said in an interview with Canada’s National Observer.

“That’s when you get financing,” he added.

On Tuesday, it was announced in a press release that Johnston will also be the lead advising researcher for the First Nations Climate Initiative, a B.C.-based forum composed of Lax Kw’alaams, Metlakatla, Nisga’a and Haisla First Nations created to fight against poverty and climate change.

Johnston, alongside other researchers and industry CEOs, will advise the First Nations Climate Initiative’s international advisory committee, which will research and advise on LNG exports to Asia, including a demand-side outlook for the continent, decarbonization and the global competitive market that includes petro-state producers like Russia and Qatar.

Ultimately, it will be the decisions of investors, their gamble on whether there is long-term viability for gas exports to Asia and that continent’s energy transition, Johnston added.

LNG Canada, another LNG export facility in Kitimat, is currently 85 per cent completed. The project is a joint venture between Shell PLC, Petronas Nasional Berhad, PetroChina Co. Ltd., Mitsubishi Corp. and the Korea Gas Corp.

It’s unclear if similar large Asian gas corporations will invest in Cedar LNG, too, but Johnston said gas import infrastructure already exists in gas- and coal-dependent countries like Japan, Taiwan, Korea and China. It also remains to be seen whether other coal-dependent countries in Asia like India, Indonesia and Vietnam will invest in LNG infrastructure or instead hopscotch to clean energy like renewables. Currently, the most important consideration for those countries is price, and coal’s cost has remained low due to the war in Ukraine, Johnston said.

Many countries in Asia have built coal plants within the past decade or two, raising questions over the next steps in an energy transition that is demanding a steep drop in greenhouse gas emissions in the near future.

Meanwhile, some Asian countries face challenges in cleaning up their energy mix due to limited space for large wind and solar farms, Johnston said.

Nuclear development is also expanding in places like China, but it remains controversial in Korea and Japan after the Fukushima disaster, Johnston explained.

In Japan, for example, dependency on natural gas spiked following the nuclear disaster in 2011, which idled many of its nuclear plants, Reuters reports.

However, as Asian countries aim for net-zero emissions by 2050 — or 2060, for China — it’s not a given that natural gas will remain viable in those markets. Other energy sources could replace gas as nations work to fulfil their climate obligations. That’s why Johnston says long-term projections are uncertain, with different scenarios showing different outcomes.

But as of right now, there are still long-term gas contracts being signed, Johnston said.

“Will those be white elephants up to 20, 30, 40 years from now?” Johnston asks. “Possibly, but these contracts are designed to share that risk between buyer and seller.”

Fossil fuels like natural gas and coal are both significant propellants of climate change, which has seen global temperatures reach record highs over the past week.

On Tuesday, climate activists from Frack Free BC staged a die-in outside the LNG conference over the oil and gas industry’s role in worsening climate disasters like extreme heat waves, droughts and other weather phenomena taking place more often and more severely than in previous decades.

Frack Free BC also points to the fracking needed to extract much of Canadian LNG for export, arguing the method for extracting oil and gas is as bad for the climate as coal. The group also notes methane, the primary component in natural gas, is 84 to 86 times more powerful than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period.

Countries like the United Kingdom, France and Australia have already banned fracking over earth tremors and environmental concerns, like the heavy energy output needed to extract products.

“Oil and gas companies have spent billions of dollars lobbying politicians and peddling lies about clean gas,” Alexandra Woodsworth, director of organizing at Dogwood, a B.C. environmental non-profit, said in a press release.

“The research is crystal clear: there’s no room for new LNG if the world [wants to meet] its climate commitments. Any politician who claims otherwise is just helping the industry greenwash its image.”

Matteo Cimellaro, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, Canada's National Observer

Uncertain demand clouds future of Canada's planned LNG exports, experts say

Story by The Canadian Press • Yesterday 


VANCOUVER — Canadian liquefied natural gas projects looking to fill gaps in the global market left by the absence of Russian gas may run into more challenging conditions than expected, industry experts have told a global conference in Vancouver.

They said the consensus among economists is that the gas shortage in Europe caused by the war in Ukraine is unlikely to last beyond 10 years, while the rise of renewables will cut into demand from 2030 onward.

Peter Abdo, chief commercial officer for LNG for German energy giant Uniper, told the LNG 2023 conference his company is committed to entering into 10-year contracts with potential suppliers — but longer-term deals will be more challenging because of Europe's uncertain long-term demand for natural gas.

"I guess the caveat is, if any European player is entering into a long-term contract irrespective of the portfolio benefits, let's just make sure that we have enough flexibility in that deal to where we can take it to Asia or some other market, in case we're faced with a situation like stranded gas," Abdo said.

Octavio Simoes, president and CEO of U.S.-based natural gas firm Tellurian, agreed that the biggest opportunity opened by the European gas shortage is in Asia, a region with a much brighter long-term outlook in LNG demand.

However, Simoes said challenges remain on that front.

He told the conference that the current European gas shortage revealed a fundamental challenge for anyone wanting to sell LNG to Asia, as planned by projects in British Columbia — price may be the ultimate determining factor, not environmental standards touted by the West.

Simoes said European countries such as Germany jumped into the LNG market in the last two years to replace Russian gas, paying more for the commodity and essentially "taking it from the rest of the world" while driving up prices.

He said high prices pushed Pakistan to abandon plans to buy natural gas and instead quadruple commitments to coal, and similar trends are happening in Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam and the Philippines.

"I look at it from the principle that we have roughly half the (global) population — 4 billion people — living on less than $7 a day," Simoes said. "So whatever we do to decarbonize, if it's not affordable, it's not going to happen."

Earlier in the conference, LNG Canada CEO Jason Klein had said Canada would be competitive on the global market, partially due to its high environmental and social standards.

Klein said the $40-billion LNG Canada export facility in Kitimat, B.C. — the only one of its kind to reach the construction stage on the Canadian West Coast — is about 85 per cent complete and is scheduled to begin exports by "mid-decade."

In a written statement, the $40-billion joint-venture LNG project's management said it does not comment on pricing and market conditions, but reiterated the facility will produce an affordable supply through "highly efficient equipment" and "access to an abundant supply of low-cost" Canadian natural gas.

The CEO of multinational energy giant Petronas, which is backing LNG Canada, said Tuesday that he agrees pricing will play a big role as Asian countries decide whether to import LNG, switch to renewables or stay with coal.

But Muhammad Taufik told the conference that each market has unique dynamics, and Canadian LNG's emphasis on environmental and social standards has a market in many Asian countries.

That demand will grow, he said, as governments around the world develop more concrete carbon-pricing policies, which would add more incentive for countries to buy lower-polluting fuels like LNG.

"They will want this high-quality LNG," he told the conference. "I can tell you already that my marketing and trading team are already delivering — or have already delivered — carbon-neutral LNG, and there have been customers who are specifically asking for carbon-abated cargoes."

One such market would be China, said PetroChina International's senior vice-president Keith Martin.

Martin said Chinese President Xi Jinping's announcement at the United Nations two years ago that China would achieve carbon neutrality before 2060 has set the world's second-largest economy strictly down the path of buying lower-emitting fuels such as LNG.

"When President Xi made that speech at the UN, that wasn't just a speech," Martin said. "That was an order."

Muhammad Taufik said that comparing LNG's costs and benefits as a whole, versus coal and renewables, may play to its advantage in Asia.

The key for LNG Canada and other Canadian projects, he said, is timing, making it imperative that production does not get delayed, thereby missing the window.

"A call-out to our Canadian friends: You do have probably one of the most unique opportunities to be part of the global solution," he said. "You are just naturally positioned to cater to these markets, and I think it would be a huge opportunity lost if we do not pivot to actually respond to those needs."

This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 11, 2023.

New emissions targets may sink LNG’s pitch as a shipping fuel

Story by The Canadian Press • Yesterday 

The fossil fuel and shipping industries just got a serious shot across the bow over relying on liquefied natural gas (LNG) as a transition fuel.

On Friday, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) finalized stricter global emissions standards for the maritime industry while closing a significant regulatory loophole driving up the use of LNG as a shipping fuel.

LNG has lower CO2 emissions than other fossil fuels used in shipping but it also emits significant amounts of methane, a short-lived but powerful greenhouse gas responsible for more than 25 per cent of current global warming.

Past emissions rules focused solely on reducing shipping’s CO2 emissions and failed to fully include methane, which makes up 70 to 90 per cent of natural gas.

The IMO’s new emissions strategy now considers the full life cycle of shipping fuels — also known as well-to-wake greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

The new accounting method means LNG can no longer sail under the radar when it comes to emissions, said Elissama Menezes, global campaign director for the Say No to LNG coalition.

“It’s a huge step and quite exciting to see,” Menezes told Canada’s National Observer.

“At the end of the day, it really brings some accountability to the shipping sector, which for too many years has not really been responsible for the whole footprint of its emissions.”

The oil and gas industry has aggressively pitched LNG as a bridge fuel until low- or zero-emission alternatives are fully developed in the shipping sector.

Compared to dirty heavy fuel oil (HFO) predominantly used in shipping, LNG does emit less carbon dioxide and harmful air pollutants like sulphur, while meeting previous emission standards and being economically attractive to the shipping industry.

Consequently, methane emissions from shipping surged by as much as 155 per cent from 2012 to 2018, according to the IMO.

“Methane emissions have been growing at a much faster pace than any other greenhouse gas and it’s becoming more of a problem over time,” said Bryan Comer, marine program lead for the International Council on Clean Transportation.

Half of all newly built cruise ships and a large share of recently built container ships are designed to be fuelled with LNG, he said.

Related video: The US pushes for 'green shipping corridor' (WION)
Duration 1:19  View on Watch

Fugitive emissions, or methane slip, along the length of the value chain — including extraction, processing, storage, distribution and even gas released unburned from engines — is the “Achilles heel” of LNG, he added.

The amount of methane that slips on vessels varies according to the type of engine used. High methane slip engines consumed 40 per cent of LNG marine fuel in 2017, with one of the most common and worst offenders being low-pressure, dual-fuel engines.

The well-to-wake emissions accounting, combined with the IMO’s plan for mid-term measures such as more stringent greenhouse gas fuel emissions standards slated for 2027, will likely increase the uptake of alternative low- or zero-emission fuels and drive down demand for LNG, Comer said.

He noted the European Union is also set to regulate methane as soon as 2025 under new fuel standards aimed at decarbonizing the maritime sector.

The new regulatory measures will require industry investment to improve fuels and engine technology. And all forms of LNG will likely become increasingly impractical as a marine fuel due to the associated costs and uncertainty associated with scaling up bio and e-LNG (“renewable” LNG), which is estimated to be seven times more expensive than fossil LNG by 2030, Comer said.

Other alternatives involving wind, green methanol, hydrogen and ammonia could offer low life cycle emissions without the same methane slip problems, he added.

“It’s not that LNG won’t be allowed, it’s just that the market won’t be as strong as current projections suggest,” Comer said.

“When some of these infrastructure decisions are being made, there are probably better things to spend your money on.”

The IMO has provided Canada’s fossil fuel industry and the maritime sector with a wake-up call to adapt to a future that doesn’t involve natural gas, said Andrew Dumbrille, Canada campaigner with Say No to LNG.

Canada supported ambitious global GHG reduction targets and well-to-wake accounting at the IMO, but continues to buy into domestic LNG fracking projects and building large LNG fuelling depots at home ports, Dumbrille said.

Aside from methane slip issues, the LNG production chain involves other social, health and environmental risks, and its emissions fuel climate impacts like the savage wildfire season underway across the country, he said. It also threatens Canada’s ability to meet its own emissions targets.

Continued investment in LNG infrastructure by Canada and B.C., like the Tilbury LNG Marine Jetty in Delta on the Fraser River, risks stranding infrastructure or vessel assets while reducing financing for other zero-emission solutions, Dumbrille said.

The World Bank has dismissed LNG as a viable option for decarbonizing the shipping industry, finding it has a limited role as a shipping fuel before 2030, and that countries and businesses investing in LNG infrastructure to meet IMO climate targets are risking unnecessary spending and technological lock-in.

The growing fleet of LNG ships risks financial losses of $850 billion by 2030, recent research suggests.

“LNG development and shipping in Canada is fast approaching its best-before date,” Dumbrille said.

Rochelle Baker, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, Canada's National Observer


Alberta and B.C. in talks to expand Canadian LNG reach globally, Danielle Smith says

Story by The Canadian Press • Yesterday 


VANCOUVER — Alberta Premier Danielle Smith said her province has begun talks with British Columbia as part of a push to greatly expand the reach of Canadian natural gas to more foreign markets.

Speaking on the final day of the international LNG 2023 conference in Vancouver, Smith said delegates told her that many countries in Asia cannot meet emission reduction goals without natural gas, and the goal should be for Canada to fill — and benefit from — that gap.

She expressed frustration about the lack of federal infrastructure that would allow Alberta producers to fulfil global market needs.

"With the right infrastructure in place, Western Canada would become a sought after supplier for both Asia and Europe," Smith told conference attendees.

"Shipping LNG from Canada's West Coast to Asia takes 11 days, compared to 20 days from the U.S. Gulf Coast."

"With the completion of proposed projects in Atlantic Canada, shipping Western Canada's gas to Europe would take seven to eight days, and that would be less than any other North American LNG project."

In an attempt to spur more LNG export projects on the West Coast, Smith said she and B.C. Premier David Eby began a discussion two weeks ago to explore leveraging Article 6 of the United Nations Paris Accord, which allows Canada to gain carbon credits for reducing emissions abroad.

Smith said she wants to see Alberta and B.C. "pioneer" a way to use Article 6 to create more interest in export infrastructure that would supply Asia with LNG, while Canadian jurisdictions gain the credits that are generated from displacing more polluting fuels such as coal in those markets.

Related video: Proposed new mine divides former Alberta coal town (cbc.ca)
Duration 2:32   View on Watch


"I feel like this is an integral part of a global strategy for emissions reduction, and I think that Alberta has an obligation as the owner of the resource in our province to take a lead making sure we build that consensus," Smith said.

The massive LNG Canada project in Kitimat, B.C., a $40-billion-dollar project that is about 85 per cent complete, is the only such export facility under construction in Canada and is scheduled to begin delivery mid-decade.

Speaking earlier this week, Eby confirmed he was speaking with other premiers about the LNG opportunity and the awareness that there is a global demand for Canadian natural gas internationally.

However, Eby said he is "not at all confident" that B.C. is on track to provide the necessary electricity to move the natural gas industry locally away from fossil-fuel usage, something that companies such as Malaysian energy giant Petronas mentioned as a key part of the Canadian LNG brand.

"It takes eight to nine years to fulfil a request from industry for the kind of electricity that they're looking for," Eby said. "It takes about the same time to go through the call for power all the way through to generation and transmission."

"We have to speed that up."

Eby said a task force had been set up to do exactly that, to ensure B.C. does not miss LNG's economic opportunity.

Smith said Alberta is not stopping at talking to B.C., identifying the Yukon-Alaska corridor through Skagway, a Saskatchewan-Manitoba corridor to Churchill and possible links to James Bay in Ontario as ideas to explore.

"I'm looking at all of those options," she said. "I think out best option, since we already see so many LNG projects underway with partnership of Indigenous communities, is making sure we can tie in our gas into those project lines."

This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 13, 2023.

The Canadian Press


Sunday, November 19, 2023

What Do US Sanctions on Russia's Arctic LNG 2 Project Mean for the World Energy Order?

The US is poised to take the lead and dictate the terms of energy trade in the coming decades. The sanctions on the Arctic LNG 2 are believed to be a precursor of this changing scenario.


Novatek’s LNG construction centre near Murmansk.


K.M. Seet
THE WIRE, INDIA
Nov, 19,2023

LOND READ

The new bouts of sanctions the United States recently imposed on Russia apparently signal a strategic shift in the world energy order. The latest sanctions on Russia’s Arctic liquefied national gas (LNG) 2 project – imposed as a penalty for its war on Ukraine – have different ramifications. Insofar as a new geopolitical dynamic takes shape in the already volatile Arctic region, Washington appears determined to prevent Russia from gaining prominence in the global energy market.


Does the emerging strategic landscape – with the continuing war in Ukraine and the new spell of war in the Middle East – augur well for the international correlation of power dynamic, with all its attendant implications for the global energy supply chains? Though it is too early to suggest a quick revival/reversal in the coming months, the global market is expected to grapple with disruptions and shortfalls in the energy sector, in one way or the other. Perceptibly, the United States is poised to take the lead and dictate the terms of energy trade in the coming decades. The sanctions on the Arctic LNG 2 are believed to be a precursor of this changing scenario.

Obviously, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine reshaped global energy supply chains, propelling the US to the forefront of the world’s energy-exporting nations. As Europe faced challenges in its natural gas imports from Russia, US exporters redirected shipments of LNG from Asia to Europe. With Russian oil under sanctions and the European Union rejecting Moscow’s seaborne cargoes, there has been a substantial increase in US crude and refined product exports to Europe.

This shift marked a significant transformation, with the US evolving from a supplier of “military arsenal” to a major energy arsenal, as noted by John Kilduff, a partner at Again Capital. Already, indications in this direction have come from US officials.

In a special briefing on October 13, 2023, Geoffrey R. Pyatt, assistant secretary of state for energy resources, said that the US was “committed to working in lockstep both to impose a price on Russia for its brutal invasion, but also to ensure that we deny Putin the resources that he is using in order to prosecute this terrible war against the people of Ukraine”. And in the case of its G7 partners in particular, the US is “also committed to working jointly to deny Russia future energy revenues and to target in particular investments and projects which are aimed at growing Russia’s future energy revenue”. Pyatt said: “That is the reason, for instance, why you saw our last sanctions package including measures specifically targeting the Arctic LNG 2 project in Russia. Our aim there, again, is to deny Russia future energy revenue.”

On October 24, Pyatt said: “Russia’s invasion of Ukraine overturned the international energy order.” With “Russia’s weaponisation of its oil and gas resources, … [it] is never going to be viewed again as a reliable energy supplier.” Pyatt pointed out “the remarkable success with which Europe has de-risked its dependency on Russian gas”. He said “American producers have played an indispensable role in helping to fulfil European energy security …”

Pyatt further said: “Russia which until 2022 was the world’s largest oil and gas exporter, has now put itself more or less permanently into the penalty box. And I think however and whenever the tragedy in Ukraine comes to an end, the market is never again going to look at Russia as a reliable investment location or look at Russia as a reliable supplier. So that means…there is going to be continued demand for energy that the United States produces.”

In his interaction with James O’Brien and Pyatt on November 8, US Senator Chris Murphy spoke at a US Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on U.S. national security interests in Ukraine. He said: “But the IEA projects Russia’s share of globally traded oil is going to fall by 50% by 2030, and their net income from gas sales is going to fall from $75 billion to $30 billion. You’re spending already 6% of your GDP, and you have a potentially catastrophic fall coming in oil and gas revenue. That is one of the things, maybe the primary factor that may push Russia to the table to try to drive a conclusion to this conflict.”

Pyatt, however, pointed out that there is a “structural decline in oil and gas revenue that Russia is confronting”. He said: “We are working as hard as we can to accelerate that trend. We do that through two mechanisms; One is by accelerating our energy transition, both here in the United States but also globally, as the Biden administration has done through the Inflation Reduction Act to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels. …But the other aspect of this is what we are doing systematically to reduce Russia’s future energy revenue. Just last week, for instance, we levelled new sanctions against a project in the Arctic, Arctic LNG 2, which is Novatech’s flagship LNG project, which Novatech set in motion with the aspiration of developing Russia as the largest LNG exporter in the world. Our objective is to kill that project. And we’re doing that through our sanctions working with our partners in the G7 and beyond.”

Arctic LNG 2 project

The Arctic LNG 2 project, managed by Russia’s Novatek, focuses on natural gas extraction and liquefied natural gas (LNG) production. On November 2, the US included the Arctic LNG 2 project into its sanctions list, targeting Russia’s energy sector production and export capabilities. The project is run by LLC Arctic LNG 2, a joint venture with PJSC NOVATEK (60%), TotalEnergies consortium (10%), Chinese corporations CNPC (10%) and CNOOC (10%), and JAPAN ARCTIC LNG (a consortium of Japanese companies MITSUI and JOGMEC) (10%). These sanctions are part of a broader punitive measures by the US against Russia, emerging from the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

Novatek has been actively advancing the Arctic LNG-2 project, a significant initiative aimed at substantially increasing LNG production. The project is envisaged to elevate Russia’s global market share in LNG to 20%, and particularly it stands as a one-of-a-kind undertaking on a global scale.

Russian President Vladimir Putin launched the first completed production line for LNG on a gravity-based platform within the Arctic LNG-2 project, situated in Murmansk. This colossal platform, weighing over 600,000 tonnes, is set to be pushed along the Northern Sea Route to the Utrenneye field on the Gydan Peninsula in the Yamal-Nenets Autonomous Area.

Upon the full realisation of the project, Arctic LNG-2 will feature three liquefaction trains capable of producing a total of 19.8 million tonnes per annum (MTPA) of LNG, along with up to 1.6 MTPA of stable gas condensate (SGC). The scale and uniqueness of this endeavour underscore its significance in Russia’s strategy to enhance its presence in the global LNG market.

Russia has dismissed the impact of Western sanctions, asserting that they are employed by the United States to eliminate Moscow as a competitor in the global energy supplies arena. These sanctions do not directly apply to the project or its shareholders. However, concerns were raised about potential complications in how Mitsui and JOGMEC provide support for the project, possibly leading to delays in production, according to Russian sources.

The Arctic LNG-2 project is distinguished by several key features. It represents the world’s inaugural initiative for the serial production of liquefied natural gas (LNG) lines based on gravity-based structures (GBS). The utilisation of this construction technology, coupled with the substantial localization of equipment and material production in Russia, ensures cost-effectiveness, boosting the competitiveness of Russian LNG globally.

According to Russia, Arctic LNG-2 also adheres to high environmental standards, as the GBS construction eliminates the need for a liquefaction plant at the production site. Instead, LNG lines are linked from the Murmansk region to the Yamal field along the Northern Sea Route (NSR), thereby reducing environmental impact. Furthermore, the project enhances energy efficiency, resulting in a more than 30% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions per tonne of LNG compared to the industry average. This positions Russia favourably amid the global transition to a low-carbon economy.

The successful commissioning of Arctic LNG-2 is anticipated to significantly increase Russia’s overall LNG production, accounting for over half of the load of the NSR by 2030, as projected by the Russian government. Moreover, the project contributes to the development of the Russian Arctic economy, involving numerous domestic enterprises and creating over 80,000 jobs across the country. Arctic LNG-2 represents Russia’s third LNG project, following the Sakhalin-2 project launched in February 2009 and the Yamal LNG project initiated in December 2017. Upon completion, Arctic LNG-2 is expected to contribute approximately 19.8 million tonnes per year, equivalent to 27 billion cubic meters of gas annually, according to Konstantin Simonov, the director-general of the National Energy Security Fund. Russia is not only a major producer of LNG but also a significant supplier of pipeline gas, solidifying its position as one of the largest energy producers globally. Despite facing Western energy embargoes in response to the commencement of the war in Ukraine, Russia continues to supply more gas to world markets, both in pipeline and liquefied forms, according to Simonov.

The major consumers of LNG are primarily Asian countries, including China, Japan, South Korea and India. Spain and France are also significant European importers of Russian LNG, particularly from the Russian Arctic. The increased capacities of the Arctic LNG-2 project are expected to amplify the volume of LNG deliveries to these countries, utilising the Northern Sea Route (NSR) as a strategic transit route. This expansion aims to enhance Russia’s position in the global gas market, enabling it to manage the challenges of reconfiguring gas exports in the current geopolitical and economic conditions.

Western sanctions have presented new challenges for Novatek, the operator of the Arctic LNG 2 project, as outlined by Simonov. The primary segment of the first line of Arctic LNG 2 was produced before the imposition of sanctions on Russia’s LNG industry. Novatek had utilised technologies from the German company Linde, with other foreign suppliers, including the American company Baker Hughes, also contributing to the project. However, post-sanctions, Baker Hughes refused to supply the full number of turbines required for the project. Critics said that rather than hindering Russia’s industrial development, Western sanctions would serve as a catalyst for boosting domestic producers and technologies

The US is actively collaborating with partner countries to address sanctions on the Russian LNG project in the Arctic. The Office of Foreign Assets Control, a division of the Treasury Department, issued a general license that permits the wind-down of transactions related to Arctic LNG-2. This authorisation is effective through January 31, 2024. The spokesperson from the State Department emphasised ongoing coordination with partner nations as the January deadline approaches.

Novatek holds a 60% stake in the Arctic LNG-2 project and aims to commence production by the end of the year. This project is pivotal for Russia’s ambitions to secure 20% of the global LNG market by 2035, up from the current 8%. The new sanctions on the Arctic LNG-2 project are specifically targeted at degrading Russia’s future energy production and export capabilities, while ensuring the continued flow of energy to global markets, according to a spokesperson from the US State Department.

The spokesperson emphasised that the US does not have a strategic interest in reducing the global supply of energy, as this would lead to increased energy prices worldwide, benefiting Moscow. Despite the sanctions, the US maintained its position as the world’s largest LNG exporter in the first six months of the current year, as reported by the Energy Information Administration. The State Department spokesperson underscored the importance of close coordination with partners on sanctions issues and affirmed the continuation of such collaboration.

Changing energy landscape

The world is currently grappling with different dimensions of the energy crisis, characterised by unprecedented challenges. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine no doubt transformed the economic recovery from the pandemic into a full-fledged energy disorder. As the largest global exporter of fossil fuels, Russia’s restrictions on natural gas supply to Europe, coupled with European sanctions on Russian oil and coal imports, are disrupting a crucial route of global energy trade. While all fuels are impacted, gas markets are at the forefront, with Russia attempting to exert influence by subjecting countries to higher energy costs and supply deficits. Spot prices for natural gas skyrocketed to unprecedented levels. The soaring prices of gas and coal contributed significantly to a 90% increase in electricity costs worldwide. To compensate for the shortfall in Russian gas supply, Europe sought to import additional quantities of LNG.

Key players in Russia’s gas production include Gazprom and Novatek, while several oil companies, including Rosneft, also contribute to gas production. Gazprom, a state-owned entity, remains the largest gas producer, although its share has decreased over the past decade due to expansions by Novatek and Rosneft. Nevertheless, Gazprom still contributed to 68% of Russian gas production in 2021. Geographically, gas production has shifted from West Siberia to areas like Yamal, Eastern Siberia, the Far East and offshore Arctic regions.

Russia’s extensive gas export pipeline network includes transit routes through Belarus and Ukraine, as well as direct pipelines into Europe (such as Nord Stream, Blue Stream and TurkStream). The completion of the Nord Stream II pipeline in 2021 faced challenges as the German government withheld certification following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Russian natural gas accounted for a significant portion of European Union gas demand, representing 45% of imports and nearly 40% of demand in 2021, with Germany, Turkey and Italy as the primary importers.

Russia’s strategic initiatives include the Power of Siberia pipeline, a major eastward gas export pipeline connecting far east fields directly to China. With a capacity of 38 bcm, it aims to gradually increase exports to 38 bcm in the coming years. Russia is also contemplating the development of the Power of Siberia-2 pipeline, which could supply China from West Siberian gas fields.

Diversification efforts extend to LNG development, with Russia targeting 110-190 bcm/year LNG exports by 2025. In 2021, Russia ranked as the world’s fourth-largest LNG exporter, shipping 40 bcm and constituting around 8% of global LNG supply. Also, Russia’s focus on the Arctic aims to boost oil and gas production, leveraging over 80% of natural gas production and an estimated 20% of crude production. While climate change poses challenges, it also opens opportunities for expanded access to Arctic trade routes, enhancing flexibility in seaborne fossil fuel deliveries, especially to Asia.

According to estimates from both the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and the International Energy Agency (IEA), global energy demand is expected to increase by 40-60% by 2040 compared to 2010 levels. In this future energy landscape, oil is anticipated to maintain a leading role, constituting 25-27% of the total supply, while gas will make up 24–26% (compared to today’s figures of 35% and 26%, respectively). Notably, a significant portion of oil and gas production in 2040 is projected to occur in deposits that have yet to be explored.

Given these forecasts and considering the potential of undiscovered oil and gas reserves in the Arctic Shelf, estimated at 90 billion barrels of oil and 47 trillion cubic meters of natural gas, the offshore resources in the Arctic could play a crucial role in sustaining current production levels and fostering future growth in the medium and long term. This underscores the strategic importance of the Arctic region in meeting global energy demands and shaping the future of the oil and gas industry. However, with the new sanctions in place, and as Washington’s ambitious energy drive gets underway, it remains to be seen if Russia will be able to appropriate the oil and natural gas reserves in the Arctic.

K.M Seethi, an ICSSR Senior Fellow, is Academic Advisor to the International Centre for Polar Studies (ICPS) and Director, Inter University Centre for Social Science Research and Extension (IUCSSRE), Mahatma Gandhi University, Kerala.

Thursday, February 01, 2024

 

CBP Lets Foreign-Flag Ships Move U.S. Natural Gas to Puerto Rico

U.S. gas is a foreign cargo if processed and liquefied in Mexico first, CBP rules

Fast LNG 1
The Fast LNG 1 liquefaction plant off Altamira, Mexico, will be fed by U.S.-origin gas (New Fortress Energy file image)

PUBLISHED JAN 30, 2024 6:52 PM BY THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE

 

 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection will allow foreign-flag LNG carriers to move U.S. gas to U.S. markets, without violating the Jones Act, according to New York-based New Fortress Energy. The company has secured a CBP ruling for the operations of its Mexico-based LNG plant, which will process, liquefy and ship U.S.-origin natural gas to Puerto Rico. 

“We are extremely pleased to receive this ruling for our FLNG facility since it not only supports one of the company’s largest projects but also supports the people of Puerto Rico,” said Wes Edens, Chairman and CEO of New Fortress Energy.

Fast LNG 1 represents a new model of liquefaction terminal development. The plant was constructed aboard three jackup rigs at a shipyard, then moved out to a permanent location off Mexico and installed. It received its first gas from Texas via a pipeline late last year. 

The natural gas feedstock for Fast LNG 1 comes from the largest U.S.-to-Mexico export pipeline, Valley Crossing / Sur de Texas. The line was built in the late 2010s to connect "reliable, plentiful Texas supply with growing Mexican demand," according to midstream company Enbridge. The gas enters the pipeline in the Agua Dulce area, a collection and distribution hub near Corpus Christi. 

New Fortress' plant will receive this U.S. natural gas, treat and liquefy it, then load the product onto foreign-flag LNG carriers. The LNG carriers will deliver the product to Puerto Rico, the company says, where it will be regasified and used.

Because the U.S. mainland and Puerto Rico are both U.S. points, U.S.-based LNG plants would have to use U.S. vessels qualified for coastwise transport to carry out this trade. Jones Act-qualified full size LNG carriers do not currently exist, so U.S.-based LNG plants sell all full size cargoes to foreign customers.

However, the Jones Act does not apply to LNG plants located in Mexico, according to CBP, even if the gas is the same. The agency has ruled that Fast LNG 1 can freely use foreign-flag, foreign-crewed LNG carriers to transport U.S. pipeline gas from Texas to Puerto Rico via liquefaction south of the border. The agency determined that when the gas is treated and liquefied at the plant in Mexico, it will become "different from the pipeline feed gas" that departed Texas; since it has been modified, it is no longer a U.S. cargo, by the agency's reasoning. 

According to CBP, Fast LNG 1's facility will remove and burn the heavier fractions found in pipeline gas - ethane, propane and butane - before compressing and chilling the remaining 95 percent of the feedstock, methane. When the LNG is regasified in Puerto Rico for use, it will still meet the market definition of "natural gas" - but it will lack the condensate fractions removed in Mexico, and will have a slightly lower heat value. Because of this modification, it will be a "new and different product from the [U.S.] pipeline feed gas," not a U.S. cargo, and legally permissible to move on a foreign-flag ship, CBP determined. 

New Fortress did not respond to multiple requests for comment. 

U.S. maritime sources suggested that the industry as a whole is still digesting the ruling, but some expressed unease. "The Jones Act clearly precludes foreign vessels from engaging in 'any part of the transportation' between two U.S. points," one source commented.  

New Fortress has deep ties to Puerto Rico's LNG supply chain, including a floating LNG terminal project that has been delayed by a permitting dispute with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The company also holds a contract with Puerto Rico's power authority to operate a fleet of 12 gas-fired powerplants fed by LNG; the power authority's union has sued to block the contract from taking effect.



Galveston LNG Bunker Port Sets Site for Proposed LNG Bunkering Facility

Provide Clean Fuel to the Maritime Industry in the Greater Galveston Bay Area  

LNG IS NOT CLEAN NOR GREEN

Galveston LNG
Rendering of the planned LNG facility

PUBLISHED JAN 31, 2024 10:04 PM BY SEAPATH


Galveston LNG Bunker Port (GLBP) has announced its lease-agreement with the City of Texas City for 140 acres of land on Shoal Point in Galveston County, Texas, adjacent to the Texas City Ship Channel and in close proximity to the maritime centers of Texas City, Galveston, and Houston.

Galveston LNG Bunker Port is a Joint Venture between Seapath and Pilot LNG to develop, construct, and operate the US Gulf Coast’s first dedicated facility supporting the fueling of LNG-powered vessels and will be located on 140 acres of prime deep-water marine industrial real estate in Galveston County, Texas.   GLBP was announced in September of 2023 as a joint-venture between Seapath Group (Seapath), a maritime subsidiary of Libra Group, and Pilot LNG, LLC (Pilot), a Houston-based clean energy solutions company. Pilot and Seapath anticipate announcing the Final Investment Decision (FID) details of the GLBP project on Shoal Point by the second half of 2024, with operations commencing in late 2026.

Texas City Mayor, Dedrick Johnson says: “Texas City is excited to be partnering with GLBP to develop Shoal Point. Shoal Point and Texas City are an integral part of the maritime economy both in the State of Texas and throughout the U.S. We are very happy to have GLBP in our City and look forward to the jobs and economic opportunities that the project will bring to Texas City.”

Jonathan Cook, CEO of Pilot LNG stated: “GLBP is fortunate to have a collaborative partner in Texas City, and we believe this is the best possible site in the entire Galveston Bay region for our clean energy facility. Its strategic location and proximity to the key ports of Texas City, Galveston, and Houston is critical in ensuring the successful delivery of this LNG marine fuels project. We look forward to more announcements in the coming weeks and months as additional milestones are achieved towards the successful delivery of the project.”

Since the project was announced in September, GLBP has assembled a top team of advisors and continues its ongoing front-end engineering and design development for the project. The project as designed is for a two train and two tank facility producing 600,000 gallons per day. The first phase of the GLBP project is expected to produce 300,000 gallons per day of LNG for sale into the marine bunker fuel market in the Galveston Bay, and Western Gulf of Mexico region. GLBP estimates it will file applications with the necessary federal and state agencies to permit, construct, and operate the small-scale LNG terminal for marine fuel in early 2024. 

This article is sponsored by Seapath. For more information on the LNG project visit www.galvestonlng.com

Thursday, April 06, 2023

G7 Plans To Back New Natural Gas Investments

With global energy markets upended, the G7 group of the world’s most industrialized nations is considering endorsing new upstream investment in natural gas despite climate concerns, a draft document seen by Reuters showed on Thursday.   

The energy and climate change ministers of the G7 members—Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK, and the U.S.—are holding a summit in Japan next week, at which they are expected to discuss ways to reduce emissions in the face of more pressing energy security issues.

According to the draft document, the ministers will say that new upstream investment in natural gas supply will be needed to address energy security after the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

“In this context, in this particular contingency, we recognize the need for necessary upstream investments in LNG (liquefied natural gas) and natural gas in line with our climate objectives and commitments,” reads the draft statement seen by Reuters.

The draft is not the final draft of the communique to be adopted and could still change until the summit, which Japan will host on April 15 and 16.

Major European economies, including the biggest, Germany, have seen first-hand the need for natural gas supply that’s not coming via pipelines from Russia. The U.S. has been sending record volumes of LNG to Europe over the past year as prices surged following the Russian invasion of Ukraine and as the U.S. pledged to help its European allies with gas deliveries.

Despite protests from environmentalists, many governments and policymakers have recognized the need to ensure a reliable and stable gas supply.

The World Bank could now be open to funding some gas projects, although it had pledged that it would stop funding upstream oil and gas projects after 2019.

The World Bank could be open to funding gas projects in Mozambique to ensure greater energy access if the costs are the cheapest among energy sources, Victoria Kwakwa, World Bank Vice President for Eastern and Southern Africa, told Bloomberg in an interview last month.

Back in 2017, the World Bank Group said it would no longer finance upstream oil and gas after 2019. But the group noted that “In exceptional circumstances, consideration will be given to financing upstream gas in the poorest countries where there is a clear benefit in terms of energy access for the poor and the project fits within the countries’ Paris Agreement commitments.”

How The U.S. Became A Natural Gas Giant

  • From a position of relative obscurity less than a decade ago, U.S. natural gas and liquefied natural gas (LNG) export capacity has expanded rapidly since the Lower 48 states first began exporting LNG in 2016.

  • The U.S. now exports LNG to 40 countries across the globe.

  • The United States has the world’s largest backlog of near-shovel-ready liquefied natural gas projects, and takeaway capacity remains a bottleneck.

How The U.S. Became A Natural Gas Giant

From a position of relative obscurity less than a decade ago, U.S. natural gas and liquefied natural gas (LNG) export capacity has expanded rapidly since the Lower 48 states first began exporting LNG in 2016. Last year, the United States achieved an important milestone after becoming the world's biggest LNG exporter, surpassing Qatar and Australia as Europe scrambled to replace Russian gas. This was made possible after LNG liquefaction units, called trains, at Sabine Pass and Calcasieu Pass in Louisiana came online last year.

Last year, U.S. exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) averaged 10.6 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) , increasing by 9% (0.8 Bcf/d) compared with 2021. LNG exports to Europe increased a torrid 141% clip, or 4.0 Bcf/d, compared with 2021.  Europe has become the primary destination for U.S. LNG exports, accounting for 64% (6.8 Bcf/d) of total exports in 2022. Just four countries— the U.K., France, Spain, and the Netherlands–accounted for nearly three quarters of LNG exports to Europe. Europe was able to avoid a gas shortage crisis this winter thanks to high LNG imports.

That’s a really strange turn of events considering that a decade and a half ago, before the shale revolution was a thing, the United States was widely expected to become a key LNG importer, likely dependent on the Middle East, Russia and North African. But then, the shale revolution happened, leading to a massive increase in gas output through the use of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing to extract hydrocarbons trapped in shale rocks. After a decade of dramatic growth and rapid expansion of LNG export facilities, the country began exporting LNG from the Lower 48 states in February 2016.

The U.S. now exports LNG to 40 countries across the globe.

To secure supplies, customers have been signing long-term deals with U.S. producers at a record clip. Last year, the volume of long-term LNG contracts signed to end-user markets climbed to a 5-year high, and the momentum remains strong.

Last year, LNG giant Cheniere Energy Inc.(NYSE: LNG) revealed that it’s had the most active year for contracting since 2011.

Louisiana-based LNG company Sempra Infrastructure, a majority owned subsidiary of Sempra Energy (NYSE: SRE) (BMV: SRE), inked six long-term contracts in the space of just five months. The deal calls for Sempra Infrastructure’s Cameron LNG in Hackberry to supply 2 million metric tons of LNG annually to the Polish Oil & Gas Co. Sempra Infrastructure struck another 2 million-ton deal with Polish for its upcoming Port Arthur LNG facility in Port Arthur, Texas.

Most new contracts are from U.S. supply as operators move projects forward. All these contracts are linked to North American prices. Meanwhile, Chinese buyers continue to dominate the market, signing more than 8 million tpy of new LNG sale and purchase agreements this year. 

“The Russian invasion of Ukraine has had a dramatic impact on long-term LNG contracts. Many traditional LNG buyers will neither procure spot gas or LNG nor renew or sign additional LNG contracts with Russian sellers. Spot prices have also been high and volatile, pushing many buyers towards long-term contracts. Additionally, some buyers are returning to long-term contracting on behalf of governments to protect national energy security,” Wood Mackenzie principal analyst Daniel Toleman has said.

Pipeline Bottleneck

Unfortunately, whereas the United States has the world’s largest backlog of near-shovel-ready liquefied natural gas projects, takeaway constraints including limited pipeline capacity remain the biggest hurdle to expanding the sector.

In the Appalachian Basin, the country’s largest gas-producing region churning out more than 35 Bcf/d, environmental groups have repeatedly stopped or slowed down pipeline projects and limited further growth in the Northeast. This leaves the Permian Basin and Haynesville Shale to shoulder much of the growth forecast for LNG exports. Indeed, EQT Corp.(NYSE: EQT) CEO Toby Rice recently acknowledged that Appalachian pipeline capacity has “hit a wall.”

Related: Venezuelan Oil Exports Jumped In March

Analysts at East Daley Capital Inc. have projected that U.S. LNG exports will grow to 26.3 Bcf/d by 2030 from their current level of nearly 13 Bcf/d. For this to happen, the analysts say another 2-4 Bcf/d of takeaway capacity would need to come online between 2026 and 2030 in the Haynesville.

This assumes significant gas growth from the Permian and other associated gas plays. Any view where oil prices take enough of a dip to slow that activity in the Permian and you’re going to have even more of a call for gas from gassier basins,” the analysts have said.

U.S. Pipeline Companies To Watch

According to FERC, four U.S. LNG projects are currently under construction, another 12 have been approved by federal regulators and four more have been proposed totaling 40 Bcf/d of potential LNG exports.

The pivotal Permian Basin is preparing to unleash a torrent of gas and gas projects to meet exploding LNG and nat. gas demand. Energy Transfer LP (NYSE: ET) is looking to build the next large pipeline to transport natural gas production from the Permian Basin. The company is also working on the Louisiana-based Gulf Run pipeline, which will transport gas from the Haynesville Shale in Texas, Arkansas, and Louisiana to the Gulf Coast.

Energy Transfer is expected to report Q2 earnings on 3rd August 2022. The consensus EPS forecast for the quarter, based on 5 analysts as per Zacks Investment Research, is $0.28 compared to $0.20 for last year’s corresponding period.

Back in May, a consortium of oil and natural gas firms namely WhiteWater Midstream LLCEnLink Midstream (NYSE:ENLC), Devon Energy Corp. (NYSE: DVN) and MPLX LP (NYSE: MPlX) announced that they had reached a final investment decision (FID) to move forward with the construction of the Matterhorn Express Pipeline after having secured sufficient firm transportation agreements with shippers.

The Matterhorn Express Pipeline will transport up to 2.5 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas through approximately 490 miles of 42-inch pipeline from Waha, Texas, to the Katy area near Houston, Texas. Supply will be sourced from multiple upstream connections in the Permian Basin. Matterhorn is expected to be in service in the second half of 2024, pending regulatory approvals. 

WhiteWater CEO Christer Rundlof touted the company’s partnership with the three pipeline companies in developing “incremental gas transportation out of the Permian Basin as production continues to grow in West Texas.” Rundlof says Matterhorn will provide “premium market access with superior flexibility for Permian Basin shippers while playing a critical role in minimizing flared volumes.”

Matterhorn joins a growing list of pipeline projects designed to capture growing volumes of Permian supply to send to downstream markets. 

WhiteWater revealed plans to expand the Whistler Pipeline’s capacity by about 0.5 Bcf/d, to 2.5 Bcf/d, with three new compressor stations.

MPLX has several other expansion projects under construction. The company says it expects to finish construction on two processing plants this year, and recently reached a final investment decision to expand its Whistler Pipeline. 

Also in May, Kinder Morgan Inc. (NYSE: KMI) subsidiary launched an open season to gauge shipper interest in expanding the 2.0 Bcf/d Gulf Coast Express Pipeline (GCX).

Meanwhile, KMI has already completed a binding open season for the Permian Highway Pipeline (PHP), with a foundation shipper already in place for half of the planned 650 MMcf/d expansion capacity.

In an effort to increase LNG exports to the European Union to stave off an energy crisis amid Russia’s war on Ukraine, the U.S. Department of Energy has authorized additional LNG exports from the planned Golden Pass LNG Terminal in Texas and the Magnolia LNG Terminal in Louisiana. 

Jointly owned by Exxon Mobil (NYSE: XOM) and Qatar Petroleum, the $10B Golden Pass LNG export project is expected to become operational in 2024, while Magnolia LNG, owned by Glenfarne Group, will come online by 2026. The two terminals are expected to produce more than 3B cf/day of natural gas, although Magnolia is yet to sign contracts with customers. 

Previously, American LNG developers were unwilling to construct self-financed liquefaction facilities that are not secured by long-term contracts from European countries. However, the Ukraine war has exposed Europe’s soft underbelly and the harsh reality is forcing a rethink of their energy systems. To wit, Germany, Finland, Latvia, and Estonia recently expressed the desire to move forward with new LNG import terminals.

Meanwhile, the DoE has approved expanded permits for Cheniere Energy's (NYSE: LNG) Sabine Pass terminal in Louisiana and its Corpus Christi plant in Texas. The approvals allow the terminals to export the equivalent of 0.72 billion cubic feet of LNG per day to any country with which the United States does not have a free trade agreement, including all of Europe. Cheniere says the facilities already are making more gas than is covered by previous export permits.

By Alex Kimani for Oilprice.com