• 13 hours PDVSA Booted From Caribbean Terminal Over Unpaid Bills
  • 15 hours Russia Warns Ukraine Against Recovering Oil Off The Coast Of Crimea
  • 17 hours Syrian Rebels Relinquish Control Of Major Gas Field
  • 18 hours Schlumberger Warns Of Moderating Investment In North America
  • 19 hours Oil Prices Set For Weekly Loss As Profit Taking Trumps Mideast Tensions
  • 20 hours Energy Regulators Look To Guard Grid From Cyberattacks
  • 21 hours Mexico Says OPEC Has Not Approached It For Deal Extension
  • 23 hours New Video Game Targets Oil Infrastructure
  • 1 day Shell Restarts Bonny Light Exports
  • 1 day Russia’s Rosneft To Take Majority In Kurdish Oil Pipeline
  • 1 day Iraq Struggles To Replace Damaged Kirkuk Equipment As Output Falls
  • 2 days British Utility Companies Brace For Major Reforms
  • 2 days Montenegro A ‘Sweet Spot’ Of Untapped Oil, Gas In The Adriatic
  • 2 days Rosneft CEO: Rising U.S. Shale A Downside Risk To Oil Prices
  • 2 days Brazil Could Invite More Bids For Unsold Pre-Salt Oil Blocks
  • 2 days OPEC/Non-OPEC Seek Consensus On Deal Before Nov Summit
  • 2 days London Stock Exchange Boss Defends Push To Win Aramco IPO
  • 2 days Rosneft Signs $400M Deal With Kurdistan
  • 2 days Kinder Morgan Warns About Trans Mountain Delays
  • 2 days India, China, U.S., Complain Of Venezuelan Crude Oil Quality Issues
  • 3 days Kurdish Kirkuk-Ceyhan Crude Oil Flows Plunge To 225,000 Bpd
  • 3 days Russia, Saudis Team Up To Boost Fracking Tech
  • 3 days Conflicting News Spurs Doubt On Aramco IPO
  • 3 days Exxon Starts Production At New Refinery In Texas
  • 3 days Iraq Asks BP To Redevelop Kirkuk Oil Fields
  • 4 days Oil Prices Rise After U.S. API Reports Strong Crude Inventory Draw
  • 4 days Oil Gains Spur Growth In Canada’s Oil Cities
  • 4 days China To Take 5% Of Rosneft’s Output In New Deal
  • 4 days UAE Oil Giant Seeks Partnership For Possible IPO
  • 4 days Planting Trees Could Cut Emissions As Much As Quitting Oil
  • 4 days VW Fails To Secure Critical Commodity For EVs
  • 4 days Enbridge Pipeline Expansion Finally Approved
  • 4 days Iraqi Forces Seize Control Of North Oil Co Fields In Kirkuk
  • 4 days OPEC Oil Deal Compliance Falls To 86%
  • 5 days U.S. Oil Production To Increase in November As Rig Count Falls
  • 5 days Gazprom Neft Unhappy With OPEC-Russia Production Cut Deal
  • 5 days Disputed Venezuelan Vote Could Lead To More Sanctions, Clashes
  • 5 days EU Urges U.S. Congress To Protect Iran Nuclear Deal
  • 5 days Oil Rig Explosion In Louisiana Leaves 7 Injured, 1 Still Missing
  • 5 days Aramco Says No Plans To Shelve IPO
Alt Text

The U.S. LNG Boom Could Be About To Stall

United States LNG has seen…

Alt Text

2 Red Flags For The World’s Top Shale Play

Changing legislation and taxation for…

Carbon Emission Regulations Could Jeopardize Multi Billion LNG Projects

Carbon Emission Regulations Could Jeopardize Multi Billion LNG Projects

Natural gas is increasingly being viewed as one of the most important sources of fuel in the coming decades. That is why Royal Dutch Shell, an oil major, made a huge bet on liquefied natural gas (LNG) when it decided to purchase BG Group, which has major holdings in LNG projects in Australia and East Africa.

But what if the industry’s expectations for the growth in LNG demand are wildly optimistic? At issue is how deep governments around the world cut their carbon emissions in an effort to slow climate change. Natural gas does offer some climate benefits over coal as a source of electricity – it burns cleaner and releases less carbon dioxide.

However, it is still a fossil fuel and carbon restrictions could keep a lid on the demand scenarios for LNG. In a new study, the Carbon Tracker Initiative (CTI) finds that there could be $283 billion in planned LNG assets that may not be needed over the next decade, and if companies move forward on them, they could wind up with stranded assets. An overwhelming portion of these high-cost LNG projects are slated to be constructed in the U.S., Canada, and Australia. Related: EIA Data Still Diverging From Reality

CTI concludes that there is a cost threshold past which LNG projects will be unnecessary. Normally markets balance out depending on supply and demand, but in a carbon-constrained world, the market maxes out at a certain carbon limit. So, any planned capacity beyond that limit will be forced out of the market. And since buyers will choose the lowest cost options first, once the “carbon budget” is filled with cheaper LNG, the more expensive LNG is forced out. CTI zeros in on a specific price beyond which LNG projects will be stranded, and it is equivalent to the cost of delivering LNG to Japan for $10 per million Btu (MMBtu). Low-cost projects that can come in under that level will likely find buyers. But carbon limits will make any expensive projects above the $10 threshold unworkable.

Moreover, CTI finds that the vast majority of LNG projects that could survive are the ones that have already received final investment decisions and/or are under construction or already in operation. There is only a limited opportunity for additional capacity, and there have to be specific conditions for them to work. Brownfield projects in the Pacific could make the cut, along with some U.S. projects, and LNG from Mozambique (which could serve India). Related: The Story Behind Inflated World Oil Reserves

Still, that leaves an enormous volume of unneeded LNG. Dozens of companies scrambled to draw up plans to develop LNG terminals when prices were high. CTI says that $283 billion of new LNG projects over the next decade may not move forward if their prognosis is correct. That includes $82 billion worth of LNG in Canada, $71 billion in the U.S., and $68 billion in Australia. These projects won’t be needed given limits on carbon.

CTI catalogues the amount of projects on the drawing board that won’t be needed and which companies are heading them up. The list is long, but BG Group leads the pack – soon to be taken over by Shell – along with Shell itself, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Petronas, Woodside Petroleum, and Apache, among others. Related: Cyber Threat Has Oil And Gas Majors On Edge

Of course, given the long lead times to build up LNG export facilities, that money has not been committed. And unlike, say, oil or coal production, LNG projects usually line up buyers before they move forward with construction. That means there is less of a risk that the market will suddenly disappear on them. Companies can avoid being left with stranded assets and huge financial losses by simply not moving forward with an unnecessary project.

On the other hand, many LNG developers may be working with entirely different demand scenarios than CTI, ignoring the looming threat of carbon restrictions. That could put them and their shareholders in danger if they decide to commit billions of dollars to high-cost LNG projects.

Yet, if policymakers around the world fail to take action to reduce global emissions, the market for LNG could be much larger than CTI predicts. In fact, that could be the scenario which the industry is betting on.

(Click to enlarge)

Figure 1: source: Carbon Tracker Initiative

By James Stafford of Oilprice.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:




Back to homepage


Leave a comment

Leave a comment




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