The White House gave the green light on March 18 for foreign-flagged tankers to move crude oil and refined products between U.S. ports by waiving the Jones Act. In less than two months, about 60 waivers have been recorded. Today, we’ll dig into the new patterns that have emerged.
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.
With many years gone by and many millions of dollars spent, the deepwater crude oil export projects under development along the U.S. Gulf Coast are finally getting close to receiving their regulatory green light. These projects have sparked commercial and wider market interest because of the many benefits they may provide — including the ability to fully load the biggest tankers, the Very Large Crude Carriers (VLCCs) capable of taking on 2 MMbbl, which could contribute to lower per-barrel shipping costs. In today’s RBN blog, we kick off an offshore oil terminal series, starting with the case for constructing at least one of the export projects.
Two maritime passages long regarded as essential shortcuts in the complex world of commodity shipping have become a lot more challenging to navigate. Transiting the Red Sea has turned potentially deadly because of geopolitical tensions, while severe drought has critically reduced operations at the Panama Canal. Combined, these issues are being felt across the energy industry, impacting U.S. and foreign producers and shippers, redrawing trade flows, extending voyage times and, ultimately, raising transportation costs. In today’s RBN blog, we’ll examine and quantify the extra time and costs that shippers of U.S. crude and refined products must bear when using alternative routes.
A year ago, as New Year’s Day approached, we were looking ahead into very uncertain market conditions, having lived through a pandemic, crazy weather events, collapsing and then soaring prices, and Russia’s horrific invasion of Ukraine. Our job was once again to peer into the RBN crystal ball to see what the upcoming year had in store for energy markets. We’ll do that again in our next blog. But another part of that tradition is to look back to see how we did with our forecasts for the previous year. That’s right! We actually check our work. And that’s exactly what we’ll do today: review our prognostications for 2023.
The need for more LNG export capacity, driven both by Europe’s push to wean itself off Russian gas and long-term Asian demand growth, is resulting in a new wave of development. Two major U.S. projects have reached a positive final investment decision (FID) in the past six months and more are likely to do so soon, both in the U.S. and elsewhere. But conventional export terminals take time to build, leading at least some, like New Fortress Energy, to explore the potential for floating LNG (FLNG) facilities — basically, an LNG export terminal located on the topside of a large tanker — which can bring new capacity online faster, much like the floating storage and regasification units (FSRUs) that are now boosting European import capacity. In today’s RBN blog, we take a look at FLNGs, what’s already out there, and what could be coming to North America in the next few years.
Europe’s push to reduce and eventually eliminate its reliance on Russia for natural gas has pushed LNG imports back into the forefront of Europe’s long-term energy plan. This year, with European natural gas prices trading above Asian prices, the continent has been able to attract an incredible amount of LNG, with imports at record levels this winter and sitting just shy of those records this spring. That helped mitigate some of the risks to energy reliability from Russian aggression, at least until the Freeport LNG outage and the latest Russian gas curtailments, but import capacity in Europe was maxed out last winter and more LNG imports can’t happen in the long term without more import capacity. Most of the LNG terminals in Europe are operating at full capacity or don’t have enough market access on the other side of the pipe to take more. While plans to build new import terminals are underway, those take time, and lots of it, so Europe is also pursuing a more immediate option, floating storage and regasification units (FSRUs) — basically, an LNG import terminal on a ship. In today’s RBN blog, we take a look at all things FSRU, from what and where they are to the recent deals with European offtakers.
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.
Since 2012, the capacity of the Jones Act fleet of tankers and large articulated tug barges (ATBs) has increased by more than one-third, to 22.5 million barrels, and over the next 18 months, new-build tankers and more large ATBs will add another 4.5 million barrel –– or 20% –– to the capacity total. That’s raised a lot of concern among vessel owners about a capacity glut and the potential for bargain-basement charter rates. What’s important to factor in, though, is that a lot of older Jones Act vessels are getting close to retirement age, and their exit from the shipping “work force” will help to mitigate the effects of any over-build. Today, we continue our series on recent developments in the Jones Act fleet and how they affect crude oil and petroleum products shippers.
A big build-out of Jones Act product tankers and large ocean-going barges is well under way, just as the future demand for these vessels is coming into question. Within the next 18 months, a total of 17 Jones Act product tankers and large ocean-going articulated tug barges (ATBs) with a combined capacity of more than 4.5 million barrels (MMbbl) will be delivered, boosting the total fleet capacity of these types of vessels by 20%. These new-vessel orders were made a few years ago in response to increased shipments of crude oil within the U.S. that, at the time, had resulted in a shortage of Jones Act product tankers and large ATBs. This in turn led to higher charter rates and the resulting increased costs of shipping crude oil and petroleum products in the coastwise trade. Now though, the decline in U.S. crude oil production has upended expectations. Today, we begin a series on the impact of hydrocarbon market changes on the Jones Act fleet.
