AFRAmax

The U.S. government recently released the final rules for the Section 301 fees proposed earlier this year, intended to address the dominance of China’s shipbuilding industry. According to the new rules, exports on Chinese-owned, -operated or -built vessels are mostly excluded — great news for U.S. energy producers and exporters, especially in the NGL sector. In addition, things are starting to change in the LPG markets due to the U.S./China tariff war. Propane vessels are being diverted, at least one ethane cargo has been scrapped, and China is reportedly looking into exempting ethane from its 125% import tariff. In today’s RBN blog, we look at what the latest developments mean for the U.S. energy industry. 

PetroChina’s recent decision to offload its 20-year commitment to use the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion (TMX) might seem like a bit of a head-scratcher on the surface, especially since Asian buyers have been expected to take advantage of the increased access to Western Canadian crude oil that TMX provides. But when you factor in the known challenges of utilizing the new pipeline and the reduced demand for crude oil in China, PetroChina’s decision to sell its commitment to Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNRL) starts to make sense. In today’s RBN blog, we look at the challenges buyers face in using the TMX system despite its obvious perks. 

The Houston crude oil hub has become busier over the last few months, and if one or more proposals to build a deepwater export terminal nearby capable of fully loading a Very Large Crude Carrier (VLCC) cross the finish line, it could become the hub supplying them. That could push Permian Basin oil flows on Houston-bound pipelines higher at the expense of flows to Nederland and Corpus Christi. In today’s RBN blog, the third in a series, we will examine the latest Permian oil flows to Houston and how that could change if and when a deepwater project comes online. 

The 590-Mb/d Trans Mountain Expansion (TMX) project, which is inching closer to its planned early 2024 completion, has been one of the most eagerly anticipated energy infrastructure projects in recent Canadian memory. Preliminary tolls for shipping crude on the expanded pipeline system, submitted to the Canada Energy Regulator (CER) in June, are multiples higher than the tolls currently charged on the original 300-Mb/d Trans Mountain Pipeline (TMP), possibly undermining oil producers’ economics for shipping and exporting crude on the combined 890-Mb/d system. However, the higher tolls are not the only concern. Serious logistical challenges remain in the form of restricted tanker sizes, a circuitous route for ships traveling from the open ocean to the Westridge export terminal near Burnaby, BC, and even a very tight passage under two bridges, all of which will add costs and time for each exported barrel. In today’s RBN blog, we provide more details on the complexities surrounding crude oil exports via the Trans Mountain pipeline system.

It’s been two and a half years since Energy Transfer submitted its plan for the Blue Marlin crude oil export project to the U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) and, like the large billfish for which the proposed offshore terminal is named, the project has spent most of its time under the surface and out of sight. But that doesn’t mean there hasn’t been forward movement on the regulatory and business fronts and, with U.S. oil exports rising fast and a preference among many shippers for VLCCs that can be fully loaded without reverse lightering, Blue Marlin is alive and kicking, as we discuss in today’s RBN blog.

This blog is based on research from Morningstar Commodities. A copy of the original report is available here.

U.S. crude exports out of the Gulf Coast averaged more than 2.4 MMb/d in the first four months of 2019 — using infrastructure that is increasingly constrained by a lack of deepwater ports. U.S. crude is reaching destinations worldwide, with large volumes traveling long distances to Asia on gargantuan 2-MMbbl vessels — Very Large Crude Carriers (VLCCs) — loaded offshore by ship-to-ship transfer. Shipments to Europe are primarily on smaller Suezmax and Aframax vessels. Overall, the increased marine activity is testing the limits of existing infrastructure. Today, we analyze the past 16 months of crude export vessel movements and their impacts on Gulf Coast ports. (We’ll also be discussing this and other critical trends related to U.S. export markets live and in person tomorrow at xPortcon in Houston.)

The Houston Ship Channel (HSC) is one of the busiest shipping lanes in the U.S. Each year, thousands of vessels utilize the waterway, importing and exporting goods ranging from pharmaceutical products to what the Census Bureau classifies as “Leather Art; Saddlery Etc.; Handbags Etc.; Gut Art”. More to the point of today’s blog: over 10 million tons of energy products move through the channel each month. But as ships grow ever larger, the ports and canals that service them must also adapt to be able to handle their increased dimensions. The Houston Ship Channel now finds itself in a situation where it must adapt to meet increasing market demands. Today, we continue our series on the issues facing some Texas ports and the measures being taken to help alleviate them.

In terms of raw tonnage, the Port of Houston is by far the busiest in the United States. The 52-mile-long Houston Ship Channel (HSC) — running from just outside downtown Houston out to an area between Galveston Island and Bolivar Peninsula — is the artery that enables the heavy ship traffic, much of it tied to crude oil, LPG, petroleum products and other hydrocarbons. But in the same way that Houston’s Interstate 45 traffic backs up during the morning commute, the ship channel traffic, which normally runs at about 60% of peak levels, can be (and has been) subject to delays when there’s an accident, visibility problems, or a slow-moving double-wide taking up two lanes. With energy-related export activity on the rise, efforts are underway to address those issues. Today, we begin a series on the issues facing some Texas ports and the measures being taken to help alleviate them.

There’s a reason why more than half a dozen midstream companies and joint ventures are clamoring to build deepwater loading terminals on the Gulf of Mexico: because it’s a major pain to load Very Large Crude Carriers (VLCCs) any other way. These days, the standard operating procedure for loading the vast majority of VLCCs along the Gulf Coast involves a complex, time-consuming and costly process of ship-to-ship transfers called reverse-lightering, in which smaller tankers ferry out and transfer crude to VLCCs in specified lightering areas off the coast. Today, we ponder the current dynamics for U.S. crude exports via VLCC. 

U.S. exports of crude oil really took off in 2017, and the exporting pace has only accelerated this fall. In the 10 weeks since mid-September, crude exports have averaged nearly 1.6 million barrels/day, with the vast majority of that oil leaving by ship out of ports along the Gulf Coast. The lifting of the ban on most crude exports two years ago this month and the growth in exports since then have put a spotlight not only on coastal storage facilities, pipelines and marine docks, but also on the huge vessels used to transport crude to far-away destinations. Today, we discuss crude-export vessel configurations, tanker chartering practices, ship-loading challenges and transportation costs.