Shipper

Enbridge’s proposal to have crude oil shippers on its now fully uncommitted Mainline sign long-term contracts for as much as 90% of the 2.9-MMb/d pipeline network’s capacity is a big deal — and controversial. Refiners and integrated producer/refiners generally support the plan, which is now up for consideration by the Canada Energy Regulator, while Western Canadian producers with no refining operations of their own — and, for many, no history of shipping on the Mainline — mostly oppose it. What’s driving their contrasting views? It’s complicated, of course, but what it really comes down to is that everyone wants to avoid what they see as a bad outcome. Refiners and “integrateds” fear that if the current month-to-month approach to pipeline space allocation remains in place, cost-of-service-based tariffs on Mainline will soar when new takeaway capacity is built on the Trans Mountain and Keystone systems and fewer barrels flow on Mainline. Producers, in turn, are wary of making multi-year, take-or-pay commitments to Enbridge if they’ll soon have other takeaway options, and are equally concerned that they’d be left in the lurch if they don’t commit to Mainline and the Trans Mountain Expansion and Keystone XL projects don’t get built. Today, we consider both sides of this important debate.

It’s a challenging time to be active in the crude oil market in Western Canada. Barrels are selling at a huge discount to domestic U.S. benchmarks, there is major uncertainty surrounding most new pipeline projects and crude-by-rail opportunities, and Alberta officials are unsure how long to maintain caps on production. As a result, the Canadian market is wildly volatile. It seems like a piece of the fundamentals equation changes on a weekly basis, which makes it next to impossible for producers, shippers, refiners — or anyone else really — to make long-term decisions and plan for the future. And now, the Enbridge Mainline pipeline system is asking folks to do just that: sign up for multi-year take-or-pay contracts on Western Canada’s biggest takeaway system, or risk leaving barrels stranded for who knows how long. Some market players aren’t buying in. In today’s blog, we recap the recent protests of Enbridge’s plan and examine what might be driving the decisions of Canada’s biggest oil companies.

Crude oil pipeline shippers across the U.S., and especially in the Permian, are about to experience something they haven’t seen in a few years: a bunch of new crude takeaway capacity with lower-cost tariffs coming online, and the sudden need among committed shippers to fill their pipe space. This also affects some folks committed to space on older pipelines, whose higher-cost tariffs could leave them out of the money. The start-up of pipelines like Plains All American’s Cactus II, with a super-low $1.05/bbl tariff — and several pipelines in other basins lowering tariffs — has traders with pipeline commitments old and new re-running their economics and trying to determine their best strategy moving forward. Some may be forced to move volume at a loss. Today, we analyze the recent trend in tariff compression and how traders deal with uneconomical take-or-pay contracts.

The West Texas Intermediate (WTI) discount to Brent narrowed 80 percent since February 2013 to close at $4.05 on Monday July 8, 2013. As a result the netbacks that crude producers in North Dakota receive for barrels sent to the East Coast has tumbled and they can now make more money sending crude to market on the pipeline route to Cushing. Today we run the numbers on changing Bakken netbacks.

The gestation period from concept to in-service for a new natural gas pipeline can take at least 3-4 years. A significant number of these projects are underway today in the Northeast US in response to dramatic increases in local production. Today we continue our series on changes in the Northeast with a look at the process required to develop pipeline infrastructure.

In our previous posting we talked about the dramatic changes in strategies, infrastructure and operations in the Northeast resulting from the successful development and growth of Marcellus natural gas production.  Some of these investments by pipelines, and shipper commitments for transportation agreements, are quite sizable and can cause a high degree of angst.  One of the factors that makes this so difficult for everyone is that the timeline for an interstate pipeline to place new capacity into service can typically take three to four years from conception to in-service.  That’s a long time in a dynamic industry and as we have seen, significant changes can take place in that long a period. Before we drill down to the strategic and 'operational aspects, it would be helpful to understand why it takes so long and what is involved in the development process to bring new pipeline capacity on stream.  

<p>Over the past two weeks, crude oil prices at Clearbrook and Guernsey have, for the second time this year, closed the gap between the Bakken and West Texas Intermediate (WTI) prices.&nbsp; Bakken prices are up and there is a simple explanation why.&nbsp; New rail terminals - both in the Bakken and at refini</p>