• 4 hours EIA Weekly Inventory Data Due Wednesday, Despite Govt. Shutdown
  • 8 hours Oklahoma Rig Explodes, Leaving Five Missing
  • 10 hours Lloyd’s Sees No Room For Coal In New Investment Strategy
  • 13 hours Gunmen Kidnap Nigerian Oil Workers In Oil-Rich Delta Area
  • 15 hours Libya’s NOC Restarts Oil Fields
  • 16 hours US Orion To Develop Gas Field In Iraq
  • 3 days U.S. On Track To Unseat Saudi Arabia As No.2 Oil Producer In the World
  • 3 days Senior Interior Dept. Official Says Florida Still On Trump’s Draft Drilling Plan
  • 3 days Schlumberger Optimistic In 2018 For Oilfield Services Businesses
  • 3 days Only 1/3 Of Oil Patch Jobs To Return To Canada After Downturn Ends
  • 4 days Statoil, YPF Finalize Joint Vaca Muerta Development Deal
  • 4 days TransCanada Boasts Long-Term Commitments For Keystone XL
  • 4 days Nigeria Files Suit Against JP Morgan Over Oil Field Sale
  • 4 days Chinese Oil Ships Found Violating UN Sanctions On North Korea
  • 4 days Oil Slick From Iranian Tanker Explosion Is Now The Size Of Paris
  • 4 days Nigeria Approves Petroleum Industry Bill After 17 Long Years
  • 4 days Venezuelan Output Drops To 28-Year Low In 2017
  • 4 days OPEC Revises Up Non-OPEC Production Estimates For 2018
  • 5 days Iraq Ready To Sign Deal With BP For Kirkuk Fields
  • 5 days Kinder Morgan Delays Trans Mountain Launch Again
  • 5 days Shell Inks Another Solar Deal
  • 5 days API Reports Seventh Large Crude Draw In Seven Weeks
  • 5 days Maduro’s Advisors Recommend Selling Petro At Steep 60% Discount
  • 5 days EIA: Shale Oil Output To Rise By 1.8 Million Bpd Through Q1 2019
  • 5 days IEA: Don’t Expect Much Oil From Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Before 2030
  • 6 days Minister Says Norway Must Prepare For Arctic Oil Race With Russia
  • 6 days Eight Years Late—UK Hinkley Point C To Be In Service By 2025
  • 6 days Sunk Iranian Oil Tanker Leave Behind Two Slicks
  • 6 days Saudi Arabia Shuns UBS, BofA As Aramco IPO Coordinators
  • 6 days WCS-WTI Spread Narrows As Exports-By-Rail Pick Up
  • 6 days Norway Grants Record 75 New Offshore Exploration Leases
  • 6 days China’s Growing Appetite For Renewables
  • 6 days Chevron To Resume Drilling In Kurdistan
  • 7 days India Boosts Oil, Gas Resource Estimate Ahead Of Bidding Round
  • 7 days India’s Reliance Boosts Export Refinery Capacity By 30%
  • 7 days Nigeria Among Worst Performers In Electricity Supply
  • 7 days ELN Attacks Another Colombian Pipeline As Ceasefire Ceases
  • 7 days Shell Buys 43.8% Stake In Silicon Ranch Solar
  • 7 days Saudis To Award Nuclear Power Contracts In December
  • 7 days Shell Approves Its First North Sea Oil Project In Six Years
Alt Text

Will 1 Billion EVs Crash Gasoline Demand?

Electric vehicle sales are picking…

Alt Text

Gas Wars: The First Energy Conflict In 2018

Territorial disputes over newly discovered…

Alt Text

Oil-Rich Venezuela Is Out Of Gasoline

Iván Freites, a secretary of…

Nick Cunningham

Nick Cunningham

Nick Cunningham is a freelance writer on oil and gas, renewable energy, climate change, energy policy and geopolitics. He is based in Pittsburgh, PA.

More Info

Gazprom Braces For Gas Price War With U.S. LNG

Gazprom Braces For Gas Price War With U.S. LNG

U.S. oil drillers have been hollowed out from what has been described as a price war waged by OPEC. But a separate price war might soon descend upon the U.S. natural gas industry, which is already reeling from a downturn in prices.

The market for natural gas is not a global one in the same way that it is for crude oil. So while supply and demand fluctuations will reverberate around the world, the full effects of sudden shifts in fundamentals are usually confined to regional markets.

A global surge in natural gas export capacity is making the gas trade a lot more competitive. That is especially true in Europe, where U.S. LNG threatens to challenge Russia’s long-held customer base. Cheniere Energy is putting the finishing touches on its Sabine Pass LNG export facility in the Gulf of Mexico, and several more export terminals are under construction and will come online in the years ahead. These terminals are seeking to export LNG to Asia, as well as to customers in Europe.

Russia has traditionally had a captive market in Europe, but with American LNG coming on the market, state-owned gas giant Gazprom is reportedly weighing an aggressive response. According to a new report from the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies (OIES), Gazprom might consider a strategy to flood Europe with cheap gas in 2016 to kill off U.S. LNG. Related: This Could Be A Big Setback For Iran’s Oil Export Plans

Such a scenario would be possible because Gazprom has 100 billion cubic meters of annual gas production capacity sitting on the sidelines in West Siberia, which can effectively be used as spare capacity, not unlike the way Saudi Arabia can ramp up and down oil production to affect prices. Gazprom’s latent capacity is equivalent to 3 percent of global production. This large volume of capacity is the result of investments that were made in a major project on the Yamal Peninsula back when gas markets looked much more bullish.

The approach would mirror Saudi Arabia’s strategy of keeping oil production elevated in order to protect market share, forcing the painful supply-side adjustment onto higher-cost producers. Crucially, Gazprom can produce and export gas to Europe at a much lower cost than LNG from across the Atlantic. Related: Japan And Iran Could Keep a Lid On Oil Price Rally

Gazprom’s cost to export gas to Europe stands at $3.50 per million Btu (MMBtu), according to figures from OIES. That easily undercuts the cost of landing LNG in Europe from the U.S., which OIES says costs American exporters $4.30/MMBtu. Even that is probably generous – other estimates peg U.S. LNG export costs to Europe at somewhere around $5/MMBtu for liquefaction and transportation, plus the cost of procuring the gas from U.S. gasfields, which today runs a little bit above $2/MMBtu.

The OIES report studies several scenarios facing Gazprom and finds that flooding the market with gas, while depressing prices, will result in more revenues for the gas giant over the next several years. By pushing prices down below the short run marginal cost of production for U.S. LNG, Russia could protect its customer base and make up for lost revenues by holding onto market share. Sitting back and not waging a price war, on the other hand, would result in $25 to $40 billion less in revenues over the next five years for Gazprom as imported LNG makes inroads in Europe.

But the calculus is a bit more complicated than that. Gazprom has traditionally sold gas at higher-priced long-term contracts. The company could try to enforce those prices instead of flooding the market, in an effort to take in higher revenues. But the EU is also pursuing an antitrust campaign against Gazprom for manipulating prices. With that in mind, Gazprom’s best choice might be to pursue the market share strategy. Related: Fundamentals For Oil Still Bearish, But Sentiment Is Shifting

There would also be a political benefit for Russia to depress prices. For years, the E.U. has tried to diversify away from Russian gas, largely due to concerns over security of supply, but also because Russia had been able to command higher prices through strict contracts. The crisis in Ukraine accelerated the effort in EU capitals to find alternative sources of supply because of perceived hostility in Moscow. But if Gazprom intentionally depressed prices, it could undermine the EU’s effort at diversification, since cheap gas would be hard to pass up.

If Gazprom and Russia do indeed decide that their best bet is to flood Europe with gas, push down prices, and box out its competition, that is bad news for LNG exporters around the world, including in the U.S. LNG export terminals from the U.S. that have not yet received final investment decisions are already out of the money. But Gazprom could decide to force out shipments on a marginal cost basis. It is not clear that Gazprom has made such a decision, but there is a degree of logic to it given the rising competition in Gazprom’s backyard.

“Why would you concede market share to a higher cost producer?” James Henderson, author of the OIES report, told the FT. “If I was an investor in U.S. LNG I would be worried.”

By Nick Cunningham of Oilprice.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:




Back to homepage


Leave a comment
  • Jim on February 04 2016 said:
    Gazprom largely supplies gas from Germany EASTWARD, while the Cheniere contracts are to supply terminals on the WEST coasts of Britain, France and Spain. In the short run, the two countries likely would compete indirectly. However, it could stimulate a larger market for LNG that could undermine European prices in the long term, if it led to a mature export LNG market that included Latin American and African suppliers.
  • darren on February 05 2016 said:
    "For years< Russia >has tried to diversify away from Russian gas, largely due to concerns over security of supply, but also because Russia had been able to command higher prices through strict contracts."


    This is a little confusing. Why would Russia diversify from their own gas? Unless it is a typo error, where the author is trying to mean "the EU" rather than "Russia".
  • Tim Daiss on February 06 2016 said:
    Darren, its an obvious error and I think most readers will pick up the author's meaning by the context of the sentence and his overall discussion.

    The article is interesting and makes valid observations, of course there is another variable in the equation and that is Iranian gas, thought it will likely take another 4-5 years for Iranian gas to hit European markets. As far as Gazprom holding most of the cards in a potential gas price war in Europe, they do not. European states that were subjected to Moscow's, shall we call it gas bullying, in recent years will likely, at least in part, be willing to pay a higher price for US LNG because of geopolitical factors/security of supply. After all, Europe has been trying to wean itself off of Russian gas for years, and the US offers that option.
  • Andrew Hopkins on February 22 2016 said:
    This article is quite surprising.
    The export of LNG ex the USA is a loss making exercise. It will be a short lived affair.

    The true cost of gas ex the well is over $4.50. You can't export it to a market where the price is $7.00. There is not enough margin to account for USA pipeline costs, tolling fees, refrigeration fees etc....plus of course, shipping.

    If I was Russia, I would just let things be. Exports from the States will be a non event.
    USA gas production is about to fall. Hedgings are expiring.

Leave a comment




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