Carbon-capture projects have been slow to take root in the U.S., but that may be changing as a number of companies are now advancing plans to capture the carbon dioxide that results from ethanol production in the Midwest. Ethanol plants are an obvious choice, given that the CO2 resulting from ethanol fermentation is highly concentrated, which makes capturing it more efficient (and less expensive) compared to many other industrial processes. But while the relative ease and economy of capturing those emissions might seem like a no-brainer, convincing the public to go along with those plans has been more difficult. In today’s RBN blog, we look at what’s being planned.
Trans Mountain Pipeline, the only pipeline that connects crude oil production areas in Alberta to Canada’s West Coast and the U.S. Pacific Northwest, has started to resume operations after a three-week shutdown. The pipeline closure — the longest in TMP’s 68-year history — began November 14 after major flooding exposed portions of the 300-Mb/d conduit, which also carries some refined products. Fortunately, Trans Mountain did not suffer any severe damage, breaks, or spills, and its operators were able to initiate a phased restart on December 5 at reduced pressures. Full service is expected to be restored soon. So what happens when a primary source of crude oil to five refineries — four in Washington state and one in British Columbia — is removed from service with little notice? In today’s RBN blog, we discuss the impacts.
Closing midstream deals has been a bit of a challenge in 2020, to say the least. In fact, this has been a year when many projects have been sidelined or cancelled outright, with most decisions on even the best prospects getting pushed to next year. But it hasn’t been all bad news. In a few cases, assets with advantages have made it across the finish line, even in the land of liquefied natural gas (LNG) export projects. Despite this summer’s collapse in U.S. LNG exports, driven by a compression of the spreads in global gas prices, Sempra Energy recently announced that it is going ahead with Phase 1 at its Costa Azul liquefaction project in Mexico’s Baja California. How did they pull this off in such a tumultuous year? Well, Costa Azul isn’t your everyday LNG export project. Today, we detail the most recent U.S. LNG export project to receive a final investment decision (FID) to proceed.
The initial start-up of Cheniere Energy’s Midship Pipeline two weeks ago occurred in a radically different market environment than when the project was conceived. As the first greenfield, large-diameter natural gas pipeline project out of the SCOOP/STACK in years, it was meant to provide relief for the once takeaway-constrained producers in the Central Oklahoma production region and connect what was until the past year a rapidly growing supply region to emerging LNG export demand along the Gulf Coast, including at Cheniere’s own Corpus Christi, TX, terminal. Instead, SCOOP/STACK production hit the skids last fall, and rig counts since then have plunged to the lowest levels in well over a decade. On the delivery end of the pipe, U.S. LNG export demand is being challenged by a global gas glut and disappearing margins to international markets. Still, the Midship project’s initial capacity of 1.1 Bcf/d is more than 80% subscribed by firm shippers, and the new pipeline is slated to provide some of the most economic routes out of the SCOOP/STACK. Today, we provide an update on the project’s start-up and the changed market environment it’s facing.
Midstreamers have been struggling to keep processing and natural gas pipeline constraints at bay in Oklahoma’s SCOOP/STACK plays, and the situation hasn’t gotten any easier in the past 18 months or so. Associated gas production from the Cana-Woodford has surpassed expectations, climbing 1 Bcf/d in that time to new highs near ~4.5 Bcf/d. Efforts by pipeline operators to keep pace with production gains have largely been on a piecemeal basis, mostly to tie in processing plants or modify/expand existing systems. Cheniere Energy’s Midship Project is looking to change that. The greenfield project, which received its final notice to proceed with construction from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) late last month, will level-shift takeaway capacity out of Oklahoma up by 1.44 Bcf/d in one fell swoop by the end of 2019. Today’s blog provides an update on Midship and other expansions in the region.
It’s no secret that the political and regulatory environments for new pipeline development in New York and the New England states are notoriously challenging. That reputation has been reaffirmed recently, as several natural gas pipeline projects targeting the region have been sidelined by permitting delays or denials. As a result the region continues to experience gas transportation constraints and price spikes during peak demand periods. But midstreamers have had some success penetrating the New York City metropolitan market (including the Lower Hudson Valley, Long Island and northern New Jersey), which may bode well for the handful of projects currently looking to serve the area. Today, we review recent and planned capacity additions into The Big Apple and its greater metro area.
Northeast producers are about to get a new path to target LNG export demand at Cheniere Energy’s Sabine Pass LNG terminal. Cheniere in late December received federal approval to commission its new Sabine Pass lateral—the 2.1-Bcf/d East Meter Pipeline. Also in late December, Williams indicated in a regulatory filing that it anticipates a February 1, 2017 in-service date for its 1.2-Bcf/d Gulf Trace Expansion Project, which will reverse southern portions of the Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line to send Northeast supply south to the export facility via the East Meter pipe. Today we provide an update on current and upcoming pipelines supplying exports from Sabine Pass.
Northeast production growth, the primary driver of overall gains in U.S. natural gas output in recent years, has largely stalled in 2016. Rig counts in the Marcellus/Utica dropped to near six-year lows, and the region has been facing constraints—from takeaway capacity and in the past month or two from storage injection capacity. But market factors are again about to roil the Northeast: 1) winter heating demand is on its way, and 2) more takeaway capacity has come online in the past month and still more is coming before the year is up. Today, we review recent Northeast natural gas production trends using pipeline flow data from Genscape and assess factors that will impact regional production this winter.
A total of 13 U.S. liquefaction trains with a combined capacity of about 58 MTPA (~8 Bcf/d) are either in early stages of operation along the Gulf Coast or under construction and scheduled to be online by the end of 2019. Of that, about 3.2 Bcf/d is being developed along the Texas Gulf Coast. Beyond that, a “second wave” of liquefaction projects is lining up, with as much as an additional 11 Bcf/d of capacity proposed for Texas by the early 2020s. While many of these second-wave projects may not get built, those that do will require the construction or rejigging of hundreds of miles of pipelines, particularly along that Gulf Coast corridor. Several of the first and second wave liquefaction projects have proposed to build laterals that connect to and branch out from nearby long-haul pipelines, creating new Gulf Coast-bound delivery points for Eagle Ford shale gas as well for supply that will eventually move south from supply basins as far north as the Marcellus and Utica shales. Today, we take a closer look at these liquefaction-related pipeline projects and how they will connect to and impact the existing pipeline network.
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.
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.
It’s no secret that a long list of pipeline projects have been proposed to help move natural gas out of the Northeast production areas. But if you were a Marcellus or Utica producer, how would you decide whether you were interested in new capacity that hadn’t been proposed or built yet? Of course, pipeline companies have armies of engineers, cost estimators, and market analysts to bring one of these monster projects to fruition. But for anyone else, particularly in the early stages, how do you even know it’s a reasonable idea? For anyone testing a concept, you need a way to ballpark some scenarios for a new pipe. We’ve been running a blog series on our RBN Pipeline Economics Estimation Model, a quick, rule-of-thumb “sanity test” for new capacity. Today, we wrap up our walk-through of the model, with a real-world example to gauge the accuracy of the model, and then with a discussion on how the model can be used to measure economies of scale in picking the minimum volume you probably need for a new pipeline.
New and expansion natural gas pipeline projects have been part and parcel of the shale production boom in the U.S. Northeast. In fact, Northeast gas production could not have reached anywhere near its current level and become a major natural gas supplier to the U.S. without the substantial addition of takeaway capacity out of the Marcellus/Utica shale areas. At the same time, the competition among pipeline developers jockeying to be in the right place at the right time has been fierce. And now, low natural gas prices and uncertainty about future production growth have only increased the competition---not all projects will make it to in-service. The risks are higher for big pipeline projects, but so are the stakes. These days, the overall risk tolerance among shippers and investors is low, especially among producers. So if you’re a producer, how can you make sure you don’t end up on the wrong side of a transportation deal? In today’s blog, we continue our walk-through of the RBN Pipeline Economics Estimation Model. We’ll follow up in a later installment with a real-world test and other ways to use the model.
We’ve spent a lot of time here in the RBN blogosphere discussing the trials and tribulations of natural gas producers in the Marcellus and Utica shales who are “trapped behind the pipe,” unable to get sufficient takeaway capacity to move supply to market (both within and outside the U.S. Northeast region) where they could get a higher price for their gas. Pipeline companies have ponied up billions of dollars to build lots of pipe to alleviate these constraints and much more investment is planned. Of course, those pipelines and their committed shippers hope that the investment will pay off long-term – that the economics for building the pipe will justify the cost. The pipeline will have scores of engineers, lawyers and accountants to figure that out. But what if you just want to make a quick-and-dirty estimate of the economics? Well, there is a way. In today’s blog, we walk through the factors you need to consider when your boss runs in and asks, “Hey—what would it cost to move gas there in a new pipe?”