spreads

The development of Appalachia’s Marcellus and Utica shales has flipped regional natural gas prices in the U.S. Northeast from their long-time premiums to Henry Hub, to trading at a significant discount and, in the process, reversed inbound gas flows, including from Eastern Canada. But there is an exception: from an entry point at the northern edge of New York, the Iroquois Gas Transmission pipeline is still importing Canadian gas supply nearly year-round to help meet local demand, despite its proximity to Marcellus/Utica production via other Northeast pipelines. This has kept prices along the Iroquois pipeline system at a premium to the other points in the region. And with the new, 1,100-MW Cricket Valley Energy Center power plant due online this spring, Iroquois prices are likely to strengthen. Today, we examine the dynamics driving Iroquois prices and gas flows.

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.

Crude oil exports out of the U.S. are the topic du jour these days. At the heart of the discussion are the who, what, where and when of how the export capacity will be developed. Who is going to build the next crude oil export terminal, what type will it be (offshore or onshore), where are they going to put it (Corpus, Houston, Louisiana ­­— the list goes on), and when will that new capacity be available? Everyone seems to have a different answer, and for good reason. Crude oil export terminals aren’t easy to develop, any way you look at them. Today, we examine the financial and logistical hurdles that export terminals must clear in order to reach a final investment decision, and what those obstacles mean for what kind of terminal gets built, where it gets built, who builds it and how soon.

Crude oil production in the U.S. continues to rise — it currently stands at 12.4 MMb/d, up more than 1.6 MMb/d from 12 months ago, according to the most recent data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA). New pipeline projects from Cushing and West Texas to the Gulf Coast are being developed to ensure there is enough flow capacity to move all those barrels from the wellhead to refineries and export docks. Which leads to two critical questions — namely, how much actual crude oil export capacity is already in place at the Gulf Coast, and how much more needs to be developed? Today, we begin a series presenting our latest analysis of crude oil export capacity in the U.S., our forecast for total export demand, and our view of what it all means for the large slate of potential projects.

When it comes to getting crude oil to market, bottlenecks have always existed. Back in 2013-15, producers and shippers in the Rockies faced a serious lack of takeaway options. Midstreamers saw the problem and the money to be made, and quickly built more crude-by-rail capacity — and, over time, pipeline capacity — to fix things. Recently, major takeaway constraints emerged in the Permian, much to the detriment of netbacks at the wellhead. There was real concern for a few months that some producers might need to shut in production as there wasn’t any way to get incremental barrels out of the basin. Again, traders and midstream operators got savvy, restarted some dormant crude-by-rail options, initiated long-haul trucking out of Midland, and added more pipe capacity. But what if the next big bottleneck isn’t between two land-based trading hubs? What if there’s not enough export capacity at terminals along the Gulf Coast, the gateway to international markets? In today’s blog, we examine recent export and production trends, and discuss what those could mean for export infrastructure and logistics over the next five years.

The weeks-long shutdown at Syncrude Canada’s oil sands production facility in northeastern Alberta will alleviate pipeline takeaway constraints that have significantly widened the price spread between Western Canadian Select (WCS) and West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil. But when Syncrude returns later this summer, there’s every reason to believe that the constraints will too, as will the need for significantly more crude-by-rail shipments. Railed volumes out of Western Canada have been increasing in recent months, but not by enough to avert WCS-WTI differential blowouts to $25 and even $30/bbl. The catch is that most of the rail-terminal capacity built a few years ago is mothballed, and that railroads are reluctant to dedicate more locomotives and personnel unless shippers make one-, two- or even three-year commitments to take-or-pay for that logistical support. Today, we consider the ongoing challenges Western Canadian producers face in moving their crude to market.