cargoes

The long-term contract has been the cornerstone of the global LNG industry since its inception. Such contracts between upstream LNG producers and downstream utility companies have provided buyers with security of supply over a protracted period while guaranteeing producers sufficient income to justify the investment in export facilities and shipping fleets. But times are changing, with significant LNG volumes under long-term contracts scheduled to expire by 2031. In today’s RBN blog, we look at the potential implications for LNG buyers and producers around the world, the options available to them, and how their choices may impact LNG commercial models. 

U.S. LNG exports in recent months have gone from providing a consistent and growing source of demand to balance the U.S. natural gas market to now being a drag on demand growth and the gas market balance. Rising storage surpluses and record low prices in Europe and Asia, along with relative strength in the U.S. national benchmark prices at Henry Hub, have turned the economics upside down for U.S. exports and led to widespread cancellations of contracted cargoes. Feedgas deliveries and cargo liftings at Lower-48 terminals both have plummeted to the lowest levels since early 2019, despite domestic liquefaction capacity climbing by more than 4 Bcf/d since then. Moreover, the dynamics that led to the current predicament are likely to persist at least through injection season and potentially even beyond that to a certain extent. Today, we provide an update on how cargo cancellations have affected U.S. gas demand for exports, overall and at individual terminals.

Cancellations of U.S. LNG cargoes are starting to take a toll on Lower-48 natural gas demand. Feedgas flows to U.S. terminals last week fell to as low as 5.76 Bcf/d, down from the daily peaks above 9 Bcf/d seen as recently as April and the lowest since October 2019. While some of the slowdown may be attributable to domestic outages or maintenance on feeder pipes — or short-lived marine channel weather conditions — the bulk of it is a precursor to the first big round of cancellations by offtakers for June liftings. This, as COVID-related demand destruction and the resulting supply glut in the past month have collapsed what already were weak economics for exporting U.S. LNG to Europe and Asia, wiping out offtakers’ margins for delivery into those markets. Nevertheless, many cargoes will continue to move. What drives offtakers’ decision of whether to lift or cancel cargoes? Today, we wrap up a short series looking at the market and logistical dynamics forcing cancellations, as well as some of the mitigating factors that could prop up cargo liftings more than you’d expect in the current environment.

After showing relative strength through most of the fall, prices at the UK’s National Balancing Point (NBP) natural gas benchmark collapsed by more than $1/MMBtu in December and have kept falling, and Asia’s Japan-Korea Marker (JKM) index followed suit to some degree. Nevertheless, U.S. LNG export cargoes were at record highs in December as additional liquefaction and export capacity came online last month, including the first LNG export cargoes from the Elba Liquefaction project as well as Freeport LNG’s Train 2. Moreover, U.S. shipments are expected to climb further in the New Year as still more liquefaction trains are completed. While the global price spreads haven’t deterred U.S. exports, they, along with shipping costs, do influence export economics and cargo destinations. Today, we wrap up this series with a look at how LNG export costs interact with global price spreads and impact cargo destinations.

U.S. LNG cargoes’ ability to reach different destinations has become increasingly important for the global market as more liquefaction trains continue to come online, oversupply conditions worsen, and international price spreads have shrunk. Earlier this week, Freeport LNG’s first train began commercial service, marking the sixth U.S. liquefaction and export facility to start commercial operations. About 30% of U.S. long-term contracts for currently operating or commissioning liquefaction trains are held by global portfolio players — i.e., offtakers with large international portfolios and the ability to shift cargoes around the world as prices move. And destination flexibility doesn’t end there, as the other types of offtakers also have shown an increased willingness to divert or even re-sell cargoes in the spot market to better take advantage of shifting price spreads. Today, we continue a series on U.S. LNG export trends, this time focusing on how global prices impact cargo destinations.

New U.S. liquefaction trains and LNG export terminals are entering an increasingly oversupplied global market in which international LNG prices are well below where they stood a year and a half ago and price spreads from the U.S. have collapsed. That hasn’t deterred U.S. LNG exports from increasing with each new liquefaction train and capacity contract that goes into effect, as long-term offtake contracts, which anchor more than 90% of the U.S. liquefaction capacity, have made cargo liftings relatively insensitive to global prices. However, the destinations for U.S.-sourced LNG have been in flux based on the types of offtakers holding capacity on newly commercialized trains as well as shifting global prices. Today, we continue a series on cargoes and destinations, this time focusing on how contracts impact cargo destinations.

New U.S. liquefaction trains and export terminals coming online are entering an increasingly oversupplied, lower-priced global market. Even so, domestic LNG exports have continued to climb with each new train that is commissioned and commercialized. Feedgas deliveries to the terminals hit an all-time high well above 7 Bcf/d this past week and have stayed up there the past several days. That’s because more than 90% of the operating or commissioning liquefaction capacity is underpinned by long-term Sales and Purchase Agreements (SPAs) that keep cargoes flowing. Planned facilities still under construction are contracted at a similar level, and we expect that to keep U.S. LNG exports on a growth trajectory that’s in line with the commissioning and construction schedules of new plants, to a large extent regardless of international price trends. Today, we continue a series on U.S. LNG export cargoes and destinations, this time with a focus on the existing capacity contracts for operational and commissioning terminals.

U.S. LNG exports have climbed from zero to about 6 Bcf/d in less than four years. This year to date alone, three new liquefaction trains have come online at three different terminals with an additional train at Freeport LNG and Elba Liquefaction’s first four mini-trains in the commissioning process. The completion of these and other projects around the globe, particularly in Australia, have led to an oversupplied global market, made worse this year by a mild winter and high natural gas storage levels in Europe, and nuclear restarts and slowing demand growth in Asia. These dynamics sent international prices spiraling downward in recent months. Then, in September, prices briefly spiked up as regulatory news out of Europe suggested higher global gas demand. In the midst of all this market turmoil, U.S. export cargoes have remained unfazed. But the shifting fundamentals have played a role in where U.S. cargoes ultimately end up. Today, we begin a series looking into how liquefaction capacity contracts and international prices affect cargo destinations from U.S. LNG terminals.