Fundamental, far-reaching changes in natural gas pipeline flows within the Lone Star State to enable increased gas supplies to reach LNG terminals and Mexico cross-border points give new significance to the issue of federal versus state pipeline regulation. Given Texas’s independent streak, it comes as no surprise that federal and state rules are night-and-day, with the Texas regs being largely hands-off and the feds’ being very hands-on. The differences are worth examining because they affect project development, pipeline tariffs, relationships between pipeline owner/operations and gas sellers/buyers—even the degree of transparency regarding shipper contracts and daily pipeline flows. Today we consider the differences between federal and state regulatory oversight of gas pipelines in Texas, and why they matter.
New power plants in Mexico have spurred natural gas demand south of the border––and fast-rising gas imports from the U.S, particularly Texas. Thus far, pipeline exports from Texas to Mexico have primarily been supplied by gas produced within the Lone Star State, but a big squeeze is on as nearby Texas production volumes decline (particularly the Eagle Ford) and export demand continues to increase, not just from Mexico but from new liquefaction/LNG export terminals along Texas’s Gulf Coast. Today, we unpack the shifting Texas supply and demand balance and potential implications for the market.
Mexico’s power sector is one of three major demand centers U.S. natural gas producers and pipeline projects are targeting, the other two being the U.S. power sector and LNG exports. U.S. natural gas exports to Mexico are up 20% year-on-year in 2016 to date to nearly 3.5 Bcf/d––more than double the export volume five years ago––and are poised to soar past 6 Bcf/d by the end of the decade. Mexico’s energy operators are on a tear adding new natural gas-fired power generation capacity and building a sprawling network of natural gas transportation capacity. But delivering increasing volumes of U.S. natural gas to Mexico will require substantial changes on the U.S. side as well, particularly in Texas. Today, we continue our look at plans for adding pipeline export capacity along the Texas-Mexico border.
The increasing availability of LNG at low and relatively stable prices, combined with the ability to expedite the installation of LNG receiving/regasification infrastructure, has the potential to spur faster growth in global LNG demand than many have been expecting. If that happens, the current––and still growing––glut in worldwide liquefaction capacity could shrink in a few years’ time, and a “second wave” of U.S. liquefaction/LNG projects could start coming online by the mid-2020s. Today, we conclude our series on U.S. LNG exports with a look at how low, stable LNG prices may turn the market toward supply/demand balance.
Several oil-sands expansion projects committed to when crude oil prices were double what they are today are finally coming online, and midstream companies active in Alberta are building new crude/diluent pipelines and storage capacity to keep pace. New storage caverns for natural gas liquids are also in the works, giving a much-needed boost to Canada’s Energy Province. Today we conclude our series on midstream infrastructure under development in or near Western Canada’s oil sands region that move and store hydrocarbon liquids.
After about four weeks offline for modifications and maintenance, Cheniere’s Sabine Pass liquefaction terminal in Cameron Parish, Louisiana began accepting nominal deliveries of feed gas starting last Friday, indicating the facility is due to ramp up to capacity any day now. Since the first export cargo in February, about 130 Bcf, or 0.6 Bcf/d, of natural gas has been delivered to the terminal. While those aren’t quite game-changing volumes yet, deliveries just prior to the outage were averaging more in the vicinity of 1.2 Bcf/d and indications are that deliveries could ramp up to more than 1.0 Bcf/d in short order with the restart and grow to more than 2.0 Bcf/d by the end of 2017. It’s clear that LNG exports are quickly becoming a prominent and inescapable feature of the U.S. natural gas market. Today, we wrap up our series on the growing impact of LNG exports on the U.S. supply/demand balance.
Handling the flood of Marcellus/Utica gas headed to Gulf Coast LNG export terminals and to Mexico will require pipeline reversals and expansions, new pipe and a coordination of interstate and intrastate pipeline capacity. That’s a tall order in itself, but there’s more: Texas’s intrastate pipelines operate under an entirely different set of regulations than their interstate counterparts––different rules on pipeline tariff rates, pipeline rules, permitting, eminent domain, you name it. In today’s blog we continue our look at developmental history of the Lone Star State’s two gas pipeline systems––one regulated in Washington, DC and the other in Austin––and how it may affect the transformation of the overall natural gas transportation grid.
There is a natural gas renaissance of sorts happening south of the U.S.-Mexico border. The state-owned Comisión Federal de Electricidad (CFE) is investing heavily in expanding and modernizing its power generation fleet with thousands of megawatts of new, natural gas-fired power plants, and the energy secretary also last October put forth an aggressive five-year plan to build out a pipeline system to supply growing gas-fired generation demand. Mexico’s power generation demand is increasingly a target for U.S. gas producers and pipeline projects. At the same time, as we discuss in Part 2 of RBN’s Miles and Miles of Texas Drill-Down Report published last week, a good portion of this new demand is relying on — and in large part has been driven by — availability of low-priced gas from the U.S. via Texas and the U.S. Southwest states. But there is a lot that needs to happen on both sides of the border over the next few years to facilitate this mutually beneficial relationship. Already since October, Mexico’s newly appointed independent pipeline operator, Centro Nacional de Control del Gas Natural (CENAGAS), has pulled back on the pipeline buildout. Today, we begin a two-part series on how plans to facilitate this new demand are progressing, starting on the Mexico side of things.
Texas’s vast natural gas pipeline network is undergoing a major transformation to enable gas from the Marcellus/Utica shale plays to flood south/southwest into and through Texas to LNG export terminals and to Mexico. To grasp the complexity of the task at hand, it is critically important to understand how Texas’s “spaghetti bowl” of interstate and intrastate pipeline systems evolved in parallel but under very different regulatory constructs, and with the intention of serving very different market needs. In today’s blog, we begin an examination of the state’s two pipeline systems––one regulated by the Feds in Washington, DC and the other by the Texas Railroad Commission in Austin, TX––and why the intrastate system has taken on a new significance for U.S. natural gas markets.
Developing a multibillion-dollar liquefaction/LNG export project takes perseverance and patience––and having good luck wouldn’t hurt. The “first wave” of U.S. projects is now cresting; the first two liquefaction “trains” at Cheniere Energy’s Sabine Pass LNG facility are essentially complete, and 12 other trains are under construction and scheduled to come online in the 2017-19 period. But what about the “second wave” of projects that was supposed to be arriving soon thereafter? Today we continue our series on the next round of U.S. LNG projects with a run-through of the projects themselves and a look at how (despite the current market gloom) there is at least some cause for optimism that a few may get built by the early 2020s.
Oil-sands expansion projects coming online and the resulting need for more diluent are among the drivers behind a number of midstream infrastructure projects in the province of Alberta, including natural gas processing plants and fractionators; oil and diluent pipelines; and oil/NGL storage facilities. The total volume of work is surprising, considering the fact that oil-sands production economics are iffy right now, if not downright upside down. Today, we continue our look at midstream projects under development within Canada’s Energy Province, this time focusing on gas processing and fractionation facilities.
The inventory of drilled-and-uncompleted wells (DUCs) in the U.S. Lower 48 grew by nearly 1,900 between the months just before oil prices and rig counts collapsed and early 2016—a 50% increase in a roughly two-year period, according to new DUCs data in the Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) September Drilling Productivity Report (DPR—See the DPR DUC report here.). Since January’s peak of nearly 5,600 DUCs, producers have been working down the national inventory of DUCs, with the DPR showing the overall count closer to 5,000 as of August (2016) ––but that is still up more than 1,300 from the December EIA’s 2013 baseline. This incremental growth in the number of “dormant” wells is key to understanding and predicting how long production can remain supported or grow in a low-rig count environment. Moreover, there are regional differences in the DUCs inventory counts and trends that provide critical insights on how various market factors are impacting drilling activity. Today, we walk through the EIA DUCs data for each of the producing regions.
The “first wave” of liquefaction/LNG export projects in the U.S. is cresting. Two new liquefaction trains in Louisiana are already producing liquefied natural gas, and a dozen other trains are under construction and scheduled to begin commercial operation in the Lower 48 over the next three years. The problem is, these multibillion-dollar facilities––planned when LNG market dynamics were much more favorable––are “rolling in” as the global market faces a supply glut, weak LNG demand growth, and low prices. Today, we begin a series on the next round of U.S. LNG projects and how soon market conditions might improve enough to justify building them.
A group of 15 diversified exploration and production companies we have been tracking collectively has slashed capital expenditures by 70% since 2014, but so far the cumulative effect of these spending cuts has been only a 5% decline in production. Now, several of these E&Ps––especially those targeting the Permian Basin and the SCOOP/STACK plays––are planning capex increases and/or expecting production gains. Today we discuss 2016 capital spending and production for a representative group of E&Ps whose operations are roughly balanced between oil and natural gas.
For some time now, discussions about the possible development of Canadian liquefaction/LNG export terminals have focused on the Western Canadian coast in British Columbia––partly because most of Canada’s natural gas reserves are nearby in northeastern BC and in Alberta, and partly due to Asia being a primary LNG target market. . But it could be that liquefaction/LNG export projects in Eastern Canada may make more sense. In today’s blog, “So Far Away –Sending Western Canadian Natural Gas East for Export as LNG,” LNG Ltd.’s Greg M. Vesey considers the rationale for piping Western Canadian natural gas long distances to Quebec and the Canadian Maritimes for export as LNG.