Energy Sources: The Emerging Technologies
November 11, 2004
Washington, DC
David M. Sweet Executive Director International LNG Alliance dsweet@ilnga.org
WWW.ILNGA.ORG
1
What is ILNGA?
ILNGA represents broad based LNG interests ILNGA is sponsored by USEA, the US member of the World Energy Council ILNGA serves as the US representative on LNG to the International Gas Union
2
What is ILNGA?
3
LNG Ministerial Summit
24 Participating Countries:
People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria Republic of Angola Republic of Argentina Australia Commonwealth of the Bahamas Bolivia
Italy Mexico Norway Sultanate of Oman Peru State of Qatar Russian Federation
Brazil
State of Brunei Darussalam Canada Arab Republic of Egypt Equatorial Guinea
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Republic of Trinidad and Tobago United Arab Emirates United States of America Republic of Venezuela
4
Republic of Indonesia
R&D Funding
Global upstream R&D estimated at $5 B Most R&D performed by service sector – 2% - 4% of revenues
Oil and gas sector R&D spending is relatively low compared to other industries
Collaborative research efforts such as GTI have been slashed DOE budget proposed $729 million for fossil research (only $41 million originally requested for oil and gas)
5
LNG Properties and Safety
LNG is natural gas in its liquid state at -259º Fahrenheit - it is commonly stored and shipped at slightly above atmospheric pressure. LNG is odorless, colorless, non-toxic - it neither explodes nor burns as a liquid. LNG vapors are flammable only in concentrations of 5% to 15% with air and will not explode in an unconfined environment - the ignition temperature is more than 500º Fahrenheit higher than gasoline. In the past 40 years there have been more than 33,000 LNG ship voyages without a significant accident or cargo spillage.
-FERC Office of Energy Projects
6
LNG Markets are Poised for Growth
North American natural gas demand will continue to outstrip productive capacity Market fundamentals support growth in LNG trade Revamped regulatory structure will spur infrastructure investment US economy requires additional gas supply for system reliability and growth
7
United States: LNG Activity Expanding
U.S. LNG imports in 2003 are expected to reach 540 Bcf (11 million tons), up from 229 Bcf (4.8 million tons) in 2002.
The United States is both an importer and an exporter of LNG. LNG has been produced in and exported from Kenai, Alaska, to Japan for the last 30 years, exporting 63 Bcf (1.3 million tons) in 2002. While historically Algeria was the United States’ largest supplier of LNG, since 2000 it has been far surpassed by Trinidad and Tobago, which now serves as the source for a full 66 percent of the nation’s LNG imports. The United States imported 151 Bcf (3.2 million tons) from Trinidad and Tobago in 2002.
-U.S. EIA-DOE
8
The NPC View on Gas Supply
Finding: Traditional North American producing areas will provide 75% of long-term U.S. gas needs, but will be unable to meet projected demand. The rate of production decline is increasing. Production response from increased drilling has been modest.
9
The NPC View on LNG
“Finding: New, large-scale resources such as LNG and Arctic gas are available and could meet 20-25% of demand, but are higher-cost, have longer lead times, and face major barriers to development.”
10
The NPC Balanced Future
“Finding: A balanced future that includes increased energy efficiency, immediate development of new resources, and flexibility in fuel choice could save $1 trillion in U.S. natural gas costs over the next 20 years. Public policy must support these objectives.”
11
The LNG Horse Race
Existing Permitted Application Pending mmcf/d 3,755 6,690 23,167 33,612 market share 6% 11% 39% 56%
Existing terminals supply a small share of the US markets for natural gas. Permitted, new terminals will increase the share of LNG entering the markets. Applications pending will add considerably to LNG’s share of the market.
12
FERC
E x is tin g a n d P ro p o s e d L o w e r-4 8 L N G T e rm in a ls
(p lu s C a n a d a a n d M e x ic o )
E x is tin g T e rm in a ls w ith A p p ro v e d E x p a n s io n s
A. B. C. D. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. E v e re tt, M A : 1 .0 3 5 B c fd (T ra c te b e l – D O M A C ) C o v e P o in t, M D : 1 .0 B c fd (D o m in io n – C o v e P o in t L N G ) E lb a I s la n d , G A : 1 .2 B c fd (E l P a s o – S o u th e rn L N G ) L a k e C h a rle s , L A : 1 .2 B c fd (S o u th e rn U n io n – T ru n k lin e L N G ) H a c k b e rry , L A : 1 .5 B c fd , (S e m p ra E n e rg y ) P o rt P e lic a n : 1 .6 B c fd , (C h e v ro n T e x a c o ) B a h a m a s : 0 .8 4 B c fd , (A E S O c e a n E x p re s s )* G u lf o f M e x ic o : 0 .5 B c fd , (E l P a s o G lo b a l) B a h a m a s : 0 .8 3 B c fd , (C a ly p s o T ra c te b e l)*
A p p ro v e d T e rm in a ls
P ro p o s e d T e rm in a ls a n d E x p a n s io n s – F E R C
6 . F re e p o rt, T X : 1 .5 B c fd , (C h e n ie re / F re e p o rt L N G D e v .) 7 . F a ll R iv e r, M A : 0 .8 B c fd , (W e a v e r's C o v e E n e rg y ) 8 . L o n g B e a c h , C A : 0 .7 B c fd , (S E S /M its u b is h i) 9 . C o rp u s C h ris ti, T X : 2 .6 B c fd , (C h e n ie re L N G P a rtn e rs ) 1 0 . S a b in e , L A : 2 .6 B c fd (C h e n ie re L N G ) 1 1 . C o rp u s C h ris ti, T X : 1 .0 B c fd (V is ta D e l S o l/E x x o n M o b il) 1 2 . S a b in e , T X : 1 .0 B c fd (G o ld e n P a s s /E x x o n M o b il) 1 3 . L o g a n T o w n s h ip , N J : 1 .2 B c fd (C ro w n L a n d in g L N G – B P ) 1 4 . L a k e C h a rle s , L A : 0 .6 B c fd (S o u th e rn U n io n – T ru n k lin e L N G )
31 29 28 36 30 34 7 21 13 22
A
P ro p o s e d T e rm in a ls – C o a s t G u a rd
1 5 . C a lifo rn ia O ffs h o re : 1 .5 B c fd , (C a b rillo P o rt – B H P B illito n ) 1 6 . L o u is ia n a O ffs h o re : 1 .0 B c fd (G u lf L a n d in g – S h e ll) 1 7 . S o . C a lifo rn ia O ffs h o re : 0 .5 B c fd , (C ry s ta l E n e rg y ) 1 8 . L o u is ia n a O ffs h o re : 1 .0 B c fd (M c M o R a n E x p .)
B 37
P la n n e d T e rm in a ls a n d E x p a n s io n s
19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. B ro w n s v ille , T X : n /a , ( C h e n ie re L N G P a rtn e rs ) M o b ile B a y , A L : 1 .0 B c fd , (E x x o n M o b il) S o m e rs e t, M A : 0 .6 5 B c fd (S o m e rs e t L N G ) B e lm a r, N J O ffs h o re : n /a (E l P a s o G lo b a l) B a h a m a s : 0 .5 B c fd , (S e a fa re r - E l P a s o /F P L ) A lta m ira , T a m u lip a s : 1 .1 2 B c fd , (S h e ll) B a ja C a lifo rn ia , M X : 1 .0 B c fd , (S e m p ra & S h e ll) B a ja C a lifo rn ia - O ffs h o re : 1 .4 B c fd , (C h e v ro n T e x a c o ) C a lifo rn ia - O ffs h o re : 0 .5 B c fd , (C h e v ro n T e x a c o ) S t. J o h n , N B : 0 .5 B c fd , (C a n a p o rt - Irv in g O il) P o in t T u p p e r, N S 1 .0 B c f/d (B e a r H e a d L N G - A c c e s s N o rth e a s t E n e rg y ) S e a rs p o rt, M E : n /a S t. L a w re n c e , Q C : n /a (T C P L a n d /o r G a z M e t) L á z a ro C á rd e n a s , M X : 0 .5 B c fd (T ra c te b e l)
17 8 15 27 25 26 10 20 1 D 35 12 14 6 9 38 33 18 19 11 2 4 16 24
C
23 3 5
32
M a rc h 2 0 0 4
3 3 . G u lf o f M e x ic o : 1 .0 B c fd (E x x o n M o b il) 3 4 . P ro v id e n c e , R I : 0 .5 B c fd (K e y s p a n & B G L N G ) 3 5 . M o b ile B a y , A L : 1 .0 B c fd (C h e n ie re L N G P a rtn e rs ) 3 6 . C h e rry P o in t, W A : 0 .5 B c fd (C h e rry P o in t E n e rg y L L C ) 3 7 . C o v e P o in t, M D : 0 .8 B c fd (D o m in io n ) 3 8 . C o rp u s C h ris ti, T X : 1 .0 B c fd (O c c id e n ta l E n e rg y V e n tu re s ) * U S pipe lin e a ppro ve d; LN G te rm in a l pe n din g in B a h a m a s
O ffice o f E n e rg y P ro je cts
13
How Much Natural Gas Is Out There?
Global LNG Supply Facilities
Existing Under Construction Proposed
NORTH AMERICA RESERVES 4%
WORLD PROVED RESERVES 2002: 6,270 TCF
Source: Cedigaz, NPC
• LNG supply growing • Multiple LNG supply proposals announced • Long term LNG supply outlook robust
15
LNG Value Chain
Source: BG, ALNG, CMS, University o f Houston (IELE)
16
Improved Technology is Lowering the Cost of Liquefaction and . . .
17
. . . the Cost of Shipping
18
These Reduced Costs Combined with High Gas Prices in North America Portend Substantial Growth in LNG
9.00 8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00
Jan-91 Jan-95 Jan-99 Jan-03 Jan-07
$/mmBtu
Cost of re-gasified LNG in North America: $2.50 – 3.50 / mmBtu
Source: Platt’s Gas Daily, FutureSource, UH IELE
19
Supply source heat content could be a problem for US pipelines
1,400 1,350 1,300 1,375
Heat Content (Btu/cf)
1,250 1,200 1,160 1,150 1,100 1,050 1,000 950 900 1,141 1,134 1,132 1,122 1,118 1,116 1,114 1,110 1,082 1,041 1,011 1,000 1,000
Acceptable BTU Content
i Au st ra lia M al ay si a In do ne Al ge si a ria (A rz ew )
Ab u
Source: Conversion Gas Imports, LLC
Al ge ria
(S ki kd
Tr in id ad
Estimates 20
N or w ay
a)
N ig e
Al as ka
O m an
Br un e
Eg yp t
Q at ar
Li by a
D ab i
ria
Different quality specifications: historical reasons
Gas producing countries - specs based on characteristics of local gas :
High inert gas content (UK - Groningen) Extraction of C3 & C4 to valorize as LPG Extraction of C2 for petrochemicals feedstock (US Gulf Coast) Need to take different gases from diverse sources (Cont. Europe) Separate networks (H gas & B gas in Europe)
Countries using imported LNG from the start – specs based on characteristics of LNG available in the Asia- Pacific basin:
LNG with low inert gas content LNG rich in ethane and often also C3 –C4 Adjustment of GCV before distribution, by injection of LPG
Source:
21
Characteristics of LNGs currently produced
Source:
22
Quality adjustment at the import terminal
Options available:
LPG injection (butane and/or propane) Nitrogen injection Extraction of C3+ and even C2 Gas streaming to users Blending with local gas Blending different LNG cargoes
Japan UK, US US US, Japan US, UK, Europe Everywhere
Terminal specs can be quite different to network specs
Both specs and available equipment may vary over time Negotiation on a case-by-case basis
Source:
23
Do you believe the U.S. will face an energy shortage in the next 10 years?
100% 90% 26% 80% 7% 70% 7% 7% 60%
No D K /R e fu s e d Yes
23% 29%
50%
40% 67% 30% 71% 63%
20%
10%
0%
T o ta l S a n D ie g o M S A S a n F ra n M S A
San Francisco MSA residents (71%) are more likely to feel that there will be an energy shortage within the next 10 years than their San Diego MSA counterparts (63%), though a majority in both regions concur.
Do you have a favorable or unfavorable view of Liquefied Natural Gas?
100% 3% 8% 90% 1% 3% 5% 3% 10% 3%
V e ry U n fa vo ra b le
80% 28% 70% 36% 21%
Som ew hat U n fa vo ra b le D K /R e fu s e d
60%
N e ve r H e a rd O f
50% 31% 40% 25% 36%
N o O p in io n
Som ew hat F a vo ra b le V e ry F a vo ra b le
30% 16% 15% 18%
20%
10% 13% 0%
T o ta l
16% 10%
S a n D ie g o M S A S a n F ra n M S A
While 3 in 10 respondents from both regions have favorable opinions of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), San Diego MSA residents are significantly more unaware (36% - Never Heard Of) of LNG than San Francisco MSA residents (21% - Never Heard Of).
Would you support or oppose the following facilities in your district or state?
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
D is trib u te d G e n e ra tio n U n its New G asfire d P o w e r P la n t L iq u e fie d N a tu ra l G a s F a c ilitie s O il a n d G a s W e lls N u c le a r P o w e r P la n t O ld C o a l B u rn in g P o w e r P la n t
D K /R e fu s e S tro n g ly O p p o s e Som ew hat O ppose S o m e w h a t S u p p o rt S tro n g ly S u p p o rt
27
In your opinion, how much of a safety risk to your district or state is each of the following?
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
es t t ls es n n n ts el la la ag la ti n W ili la P U P P n it s t
D K /R e fu s e M in im a l R is k M o d e ra te R is k S ig n ific a n t R is k H u g e R is k
rt
er
ac
er
er
P
as
o
er
w
w
F
S
G
w
as
P
P
d
o
an
lG
r
g
ed
P
g
ea
in
ra
il
ir
n
al
cl
rn
O
u
-f
E
C
o
u
u
at
as
G
an
B
N
al
le
ew
o
ie
C
C
ef
ld
u
ew
L
iq
O
N
D
is
N
tr
ib
d
u
te
N
d
G
en
er
er
P
y
at
o
o
o
w
io
h
n
28
Anti-import Sentiment Runs High
Im p o rta n c e fo r th e U S T h a t 9 9 % o f N a tu ra l G a s U s e d in th e U S Is P ro d u c e d in N o rth A m e ric a
96% 93% 93% 92%
TO TAL IM P O R T A N T
95%
72% 69%
V e ry Im po rta nt
64%
73%
74%
23%
S o m e wha t Im po rta nt
24% 20% 28%
F e b -0 3 S e p -0 2 A p r-0 2 F e b -0 2 *S e p -0 1
21%
4%
TO TAL N O T IM P O R T A N T
6% 5% 7%
5%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
*S plit S a m ple ; n = 4 5 8
H o w im p o rta n t d o y o u fe el it is fo r th e U n ite d S ta te s th a t 9 9 % o f th e n a tu ral g a s u s e d in th e U n ite d S ta te s is p ro d u ce d he re in N o rth A m e ric a ?
29
ILNGA – The Voice of the LNG Industry
David M. Sweet
Executive Director
International LNG Alliance 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW suite 550
Washington, DC 20004-3022
dsweet@ilnga.org Ph: 202 312-1244
WWW.ILNGA.ORG
30