WTI Crude

Loading...

Brent Crude

Loading...

Natural Gas

Loading...

Gasoline

Loading...

Heating Oil

Loading...

Rotate device for more commodity prices

Alt Text

Earthquake Doesn’t Deter Japan From Pursuing Nuclear Agenda

Japan’s post-Fukushima nuclear future is…

Alt Text

Russia Is Finally Making Headway In Its Pivot East

Russian sights are still firmly…

Nick Cunningham

Nick Cunningham

Nick Cunningham is a Vermont-based writer on energy and environmental issues. You can follow him on twitter.

More Info

It’s Not Looking Good For Canadian LNG

Natural Gas Storage

As the Keystone XL saga made clear, Alberta has had trouble getting its oil and gas to markets outside of the province. That trouble continues for Canada’s oil industry.

The 1.1 million barrel-per-day Energy East Pipeline, for example, would take Alberta crude to Canada’s Atlantic coast, but it has been slowed and delayed by regulatory reviews. The CEO of TransCanada, Russ Girling, said that the failure to build new pipelines is costing the industry dearly. "The delay is already costing our economy billions of dollars. Those are the kinds of numbers that have already come out of the economy because we haven't gotten these things done over the last few years," Girling lamented. He said that he hopes that Canadian regulators complete the environmental review by 2018. Several oil pipelines to the Pacific face similar hurdles.

Canada’s natural gas sector faces a different problem: its market in the U.S. is shrinking. Canada’s natural gas exports to the United States have been declining pretty much without interruption for the past decade. That is largely due to the boom in shale gas production in places like Pennsylvania and Texas, making Canadian gas less needed. The U.S. Energy Information Administration sees Canadian pipeline gas exports to the U.S. continuing to decline at a gradual pace from here on out, falling to “a negligible volume by 2040.

(Click to enlarge)

That has created a bit of urgency for Canada’s natural gas producers. Canada’s natural gas production occurs mostly in Alberta alongside its large oil sector. But production has fallen in lock step with the declines in exports to the U.S. – a declining customer base means there is little reason to produce. Related: Shell’s Profits Plunge 83%

The only option is to export the gas to Asia. But that presents another problem – LNG export terminals must be constructed on the Pacific Coast, and pipelines must be constructed to connect Alberta gas to the coast. This is no small feat.

Getting the LNG export terminals online is pivotal; without them, upstream drillers will be trapped without an outlet, forcing them to scale back production. Canada’s National Energy Board (NEB) published a study in January 2016 in which it looked at two scenarios for Canada’s gas production. In the first example, the “high-LNG case,” LNG exports rise to 4 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) by 2023 and 6 Bcf/d by 2030. If this occurs, and gas flows through the newly constructed LNG export terminals, upstream gas production in Alberta can rise from 15 Bcf/d in 2015 to 22 Bcf/d in 2040.

On the other hand, if LNG terminals are blocked by the government, or if companies like Petronas or Shell decide not to follow through on development and no LNG terminals are constructed, the NEB expects natural gas production to remain unchanged in Canada at 15 Bcf/d through 2040, basically keeping steady to serve domestic consumption.

Building the pipelines and export terminals won’t be easy. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said in January that all new pipelines and major pieces of infrastructure have to meet environmental standards that encompass greenhouse gas emissions, a higher bar than under his predecessor. Related: The Shale Sector Just Got Two Critical Wins – In Two Different States

Malaysia’s state-owned Petronas, which has backed a $36 billion LNG export terminal on British Columbia’s Pacific Coast, threatened to walk away from its project in March because of the new rules. The Pacific NorthWest LNG project is one of the top contenders to become Canada’s first LNG export terminal. The company said that it would make a final investment decision within the next few months. "Depending on the timing of the CEAA (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency) decision, we would hope that by late summer or early fall we would be in a position to follow up on (a final investment decision)," Michael Culbert, president of Pacific NorthWest LNG, told Reuters in late April.

Separately, Shell suggested that it could back away from its own proposed LNG export terminal in British Columbia. Shell executives said that the LNG terminal was competing with several other company projects in the U.S., and the LNG project was not the first in line. “It’s highly unlikely that more than I would say two, maybe only one,… will actually go ahead in that timeframe,” Shell’s CFO Cimon Henry said this week. “…The chemicals plant is probably the first one because of the timing of certain commitments that are already in place,” Henry added, referring to a chemicals plant in Pennsylvania that Shell will build. He seemed doubtful that the company would move forward with a final investment decision on its LNG project in British Columbia this year.

If Petronas and Shell do not move forward, it is hard to see any others making progress in the short run. There are almost two dozen proposed projects but none have received final investment decisions. Related: Why Oil Prices Will Likely Drop Below $40 Soon

It isn’t just the Pacific Coast LNG projects that have a lot riding on the Canadian government’s environmental reviews. Many others in the industry are holding their breath. “This is going to be widely watched as a barometer on the government’s interest in supporting what is the driver of the Canadian economy, which is energy,” John Stephenson, CEO of the Toronto-based investment firm Stephenson & Co., said in an interview Bloomberg in March.

The regulatory delay might have done Petronas a favor – LNG prices have crashed since 2014, and Petronas recently said that it needs to cut $12 billion in spending because of low oil and gas prices. The viability of Canadian LNG is questionable, given the cheaper alternatives elsewhere in the world. A wave of LNG export terminals are under construction and are coming online in the next few years, and the proposed projects in Canada have not yet even broken ground. Despite all the excitement, Canadian LNG is late to the game.

By Nick Cunningham of Oilprice.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:




Back to homepage


Leave a comment
  • Bill Simpson on May 09 2016 said:
    Too bad Mexico isn't next to Canada. With the population and industrial growth down there, they will need a lot of natural gas in the future. It is almost as useful as crude oil, both as a fuel, and as a chemical feedstock.
    One day Cuba might need a lot of air conditioning. LNG could run power plants on the island. They already sent a shipload of LNG from Louisiana all the way down to Brazil. Cuba is a bit closer than that. Solar would work in Cuba during the day. No short winter days down there. Hurricane winds might be a problem.
  • John on May 09 2016 said:
    If I were to put my money on the old crystal ball. All this hype about the downturn in the energy sector etc. I'm predicting that alberta will take charge and lead the rest of Canada like it did a few years ago, the only difference is that the next boom will be untouchable. from the sudden surprise that hit the economy in the past 2 years. Alberta will be stronger then ever before. Like I said my prediction will be with in 3 years time!! 2019- 2020! Toronto
    Ontario will be hit with a housing crash along with Vancouver British Colombia!

    All the best to a wonderful province Alberta!!
    And by the way I live in Ontario, but I'll keep my comments to myself."
  • Steve on May 10 2016 said:
    As Australia did Canada, is going to shot it's self in the foot putting barrier after barrier in front of LNG terminal construction preventing the export of Canadian gas. We are all aware of climate change however Canada and the USA still do not use CNG as a transportation fuel which would cut green house emissions by 1/2. Step one, get the world off coal fired power plants. step 2) Replace the coal fired power plants with gas fired power plants for base load power. Step 3) Develop renewables.
    Instead people claim we can jump straight to renewables which isn't possible. Renewables can not provide base load power (power 100% of the time)

Leave a comment




Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News