NrgEdge Editor

Sharing content and articles for users
Last Updated: February 24, 2017
1 view
Business Trends
image

In November 2016, high production and seasonally low internal demand contributed to record crude oil exports from Iraq and near-record exports from Saudi Arabia (according to the Joint Organizations Data Initiative (JODI), with published data dating to January 2002). In that same month price spreads in the market supported high levels of U.S. crude imports from those countries. However, market developments, including the November 2016 agreement among certain members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to reduce production and the recent widening of the spread between Dubai/Oman crude and U.S.-produced Mars crude, suggest U.S. imports from Saudi Arabia and Iraq are now becoming less attractive to U.S. refiners.

According to the latest JODI data, Saudi crude oil exports reached 8.3 million barrels per day (b/d) in November 2016, the highest level since May 2003, before declining to 8.0 million b/d in December. Saudi exports generally increase from August to November as seasonal declines in domestic consumption increase availability of oil for export. In Iraq, exports reached a record high of almost 4.1 million b/d in November and remained at that level in December (Figure 1). According to JODI data, Saudi and Iraqi production levels were relatively high prior to the pledged production cuts beginning January 2017, with December 2016 volumes up 321,000 b/d and 700,000 b/d, respectively, from their year-ago levels, creating an opportunity to increase exports.


Although crude oil exports from Saudi Arabia and Iraq increased in November and December, the transit times result in a delay before these shipments arrive in the United States and appear in EIA import data. Shipments take an estimated 47-51 days to reach the U.S. Gulf Coast from the Persian Gulf after traveling around the southern tip of Africa (Figure 2). Using a smaller vessel capable of transiting the Suez Canal in Egypt, a voyage from the Persian Gulf to the U.S. East Coast takes an estimated 32-36 days. Traveling from the Persian Gulf to the U.S. West Coast on a Trans-Pacific route requires an estimated 39-43 days.

twip170223fig2a.png

Given transit times, cargoes exported from Saudi Arabia and Iraq in November and December 2016 would be expected arrive in the United States between December 2016 and February 2017. Imports from Saudi Arabia into the United States increased for five consecutive weeks, rising from 1.0 million b/d for the week ending January 6 to 1.3 million b/d for the week ending February 10. Similarly, U.S. imports from Iraq grew for five consecutive weeks, increasing from 373,000 b/d for the week ending December 9, 2016 to 723,000 b/d for the week ending January 13, 2017 (Figure 3).

twip170223fig3-lg.png

The price difference between Dubai/Oman medium sour grade oil, which serves as a benchmark price for similar grades produced through the Middle East, and Mars, a U.S. medium sour crude oil with similar properties, was at its lowest level for several years in 2016 (Figure 4). Under such pricing conditions, medium and heavy crude oils from Saudi Arabia and Iraq were attractive to U.S. refiners because they produced a profitable slate of finished products when processed in complex refineries.

twip170223fig4-lg.png

After OPEC announced crude oil production cuts in late November 2016, the relative price of Dubai/Oman crude oil rose because supply reductions pledged by Middle East producers disproportionately affected medium sour crudes. In January 2017, the premium of Dubai/Oman over Mars reached its highest level in over a year, which is likely to encourage U.S. refiners to process more domestic medium sour barrels while reducing imports of comparable grades from the Middle East.

U.S. average regular gasoline price falls, diesel price rises

The U.S. average regular gasoline retail price fell less than one cent from the previous week to $2.30 per gallon on February 20, up 57 cents from the same time last year. The Midwest price fell two cents to $2.19 per gallon, while the Gulf Coast price fell one cent to $2.07 per gallon. The West Coast and Rocky Mountain prices each increased two cents to $2.75 per gallon and $2.25 per gallon, respectively. The East Coast price increased less than one cent, remaining at $2.29 per gallon.

The U.S. average diesel fuel price increased less than one cent, remaining at $2.57 per gallon on February 20, 59 cents higher than a year ago. The Rocky Mountain price increased three cents to $2.55 per gallon, while the West Coast, Midwest, and Gulf Coast prices each increased one cent to $2.88 per gallon, $2.50 per gallon, and $2.43 per gallon, respectively. The East Coast price rose less than one cent, remaining at $2.63 per gallon.

Propane inventories fall

U.S. propane stocks decreased by 3.3 million barrels last week to 49.8 million barrels as of February 17, 2017, 16.9 million barrels (25.3%) lower than a year ago. Gulf Coast, Midwest, and East Coast inventories decreased by 1.8 million barrels, 1.0 million barrels, and 0.6 million barrels, respectively, while Rocky Mountain/West Coast inventories were unchanged. Propylene non-fuel-use inventories represented 5.8% of total propane inventories.

Residential heating oil price increases, propane price decreases

As of February 20, 2017, residential heating oil prices averaged nearly $2.65 per gallon, less than one cent per gallon more than last week’s price but 55 cents per gallon higher than last year’s price at this time. The average wholesale heating oil price is just under $1.72 per gallon, two cents per gallon less than last week but nearly 62 cents per gallon higher than a year ago. Residential propane prices averaged just below $2.45 per gallon, nearly one cent per gallon less than last week’s price but 42 cents per gallon higher than a year ago. Wholesale propane prices averaged $0.82 per gallon, four cents per gallon lower than last week but nearly 35 cents per gallon higher than last year’s price.

3
0 0

Something interesting to share?
Join NrgEdge and create your own NrgBuzz today

Latest NrgBuzz

Recalibrating Singapore’s Offshore Marine Industry

The state investment firm Temasek Holdings has made an offer to purchase control of Singaporean conglomerate Keppel Corp for S$4.1 billion. News of this has reverberated around the island, sparking speculation about what the new ownership structure could bring – particularly in the Singaporean rig-building sector.

Temasek already owns 20.5% of Keppel Corp. Its offer to increase its stake to 51% for S$4.1 billion would see it gain majority shareholding, allowing a huge amount of strategic flexibility. The deal would be through Temasek’s wholly-owned subsidiary Kyanite Investment Holdings, offering S$7.35 per share of Keppel Corp, a 26% premium of the traded price at that point. The financial analyst community have remarked that the bid is ‘fair’ and ‘reasonable’, and there appears to be no political headwinds against the deal being carried out with the exception of foreign and domestic regulatory approval.

The implications of the deal are far-ranging. Keppel Corp’s business ranges from property to infrastructure to telecommunications, including Keppel Land and a partial stake in major Singapore telco M1. Temasek has already said that it does not intend to delist and privatise Keppel Corp, and has a long-standing history of not interfering or getting involved in the operations or decisions of its portfolio companies.

This might be different. Speculation is that this move, if successful could lead to a restructuring of the Singapore offshore and marine industry. Since 2015, Singapore’s rig-building industry has been in the doldrums as global oil prices tumbled. Although prices have recovered, cost-cutting and investment reticence have provided a slower recovery for the industry. In Singapore, this has affected the two major rigbuilders – Keppel O&M and its rival Sembcorp Marine. In 2018, Keppel O&M reported a loss of over SS$100 million (although much improved from its previous loss of over SS$800 million); Sembcorp Marine, too, faces a challenging market, with a net loss of nearly 50 million. Temasek itself is already a majority shareholder in Sembcorp Marine.

Once Keppel Corp is under Temasek’s control, this could lead to consolidation in the industry. There are many pros to this, mainly the merging of rig-building operations and shipyards will put Singapore is a stronger position against giant shipyards of China and South Korea, which have been on an asset buying spree. With the overhang of the Sete Brasil scandal over as both Keppel O&M and Sembcorp Marine have settled corruption allegations over drillship and rig contracts, a merger is now increasingly likely. It would sort of backtrack from Temasek’s recent direction in steering away from fossil fuel investments (it had decided to not participate in the upcoming Saudi Aramco IPO for environmental concerns) but strengthening the Singaporeans O&M industry has national interest implications. As a representative of Temasek said of its portfolio – ‘(we are trying to) re-purpose some businesses to try and grasp the demands of tomorrow.’ So, if there is to be a tomorrow, then Singapore’s two largest offshore players need to start preparing for that now in the face of tremendous competition. And once again it will fall on the Singaporean government, through Temasek, to facilitate an arranged marriage for the greater good.

Keppel and Sembcorp O&M at a glance:

Keppel Offshore & Marine, 2018

  • Revenue: S$1.88 billion (up from S$1.80 billion)
  • Net Profit: -S$109 million (up from -S$826 million)
  • Contracts secured: S$1.7 billion

Sembcorp Marine, 2018

  • Turnover: S$4.88 billion (up from S$3.03 billion)
  • Net Profit: -S$48 million (down from S$157 million)
  • Contracts secured: S$1.2 billion
October, 22 2019
Global energy consumption driven by more electricity in residential, commercial buildings

Energy used in the buildings sector—which includes residential and commercial structures—accounted for 20% of global delivered energy consumption in 2018. In its International Energy Outlook 2019 (IEO2019) Reference case, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that global energy consumption in buildings will grow by 1.3% per year on average from 2018 to 2050. In countries that are not part of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (non-OECD countries), EIA projects that energy consumed in buildings will grow by more than 2% per year, or about five times the rate of OECD countries.

building sector energy consumption

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, International Energy Outlook 2019 Reference case

Electricity—the main energy source for lighting, space cooling, appliances, and equipment—is the fastest-growing energy source in residential and commercial buildings. EIA expects that rising population and standards of living in non-OECD countries will lead to an increase in the demand for electricity-consuming appliances and personal equipment.

EIA expects that in the early 2020s, total electricity use in buildings in non-OECD countries will surpass electricity use in OECD countries. By 2050, buildings in non-OECD countries will collectively use about twice as much electricity as buildings in OECD countries.

average annual change in buildings sector electricity consumption

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, International Energy Outlook 2019 Reference case
Note: OECD is the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

In the IEO2019 Reference case, electricity use by buildings in China is projected to increase more than any other country in absolute terms, but India will experience the fastest growth rate in buildings electricity use from 2018 to 2050. EIA expects that use of electricity by buildings in China will surpass that of the United States by 2030. By 2050, EIA expects China’s buildings will account for more than one-fifth of the electricity consumption in buildings worldwide.

As the quality of life in emerging economies improves with urbanization, rising income, and access to electricity, EIA projects that electricity’s share of the total use of energy in buildings will nearly double in non-OECD countries, from 21% in 2018 to 38% in 2050. By contrast, electricity’s share of delivered energy consumption in OECD countries’ buildings will decrease from 24% to 21%.

building sector electricity consumption per capita by region

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, International Energy Outlook 2019 Reference case
Note: OECD is the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

The per capita use of electricity in buildings in OECD countries will increase 0.6% per year between 2018 and 2050. The relatively slow growth is affected by improvements in building codes and improvements in the efficiency of appliances and equipment. Despite a slower rate of growth than non-OECD countries, OECD per capita electricity use in buildings will remain higher than in non-OECD countries because of more demand for energy-intensive services such as space cooling.

In non-OECD countries, the IEO2019 Reference case projects that per capita electricity use in buildings will grow by 2.5% per year, as access to energy expands and living standards rise, leading to increased use of electric-intensive appliances and equipment. This trend is particularly evident in India and China, where EIA projects that per capita electricity use in buildings will increase by 5.3% per year in India and 3.6% per year in China from 2018 to 2050.

October, 22 2019
Natural gas inventories surpass five-year average for the first time in two years

Working natural gas inventories in the Lower 48 states totaled 3,519 billion cubic feet (Bcf) for the week ending October 11, 2019, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) Weekly Natural Gas Storage Report (WNGSR). This is the first week that Lower 48 states’ working gas inventories have exceeded the previous five-year average since September 22, 2017. Weekly injections in three of the past four weeks each surpassed 100 Bcf, or about 27% more than typical injections for that time of year.

Working natural gas capacity at underground storage facilities helps market participants balance the supply and consumption of natural gas. Inventories in each of the five regions are based on varying commercial, risk management, and reliability goals.

When determining whether natural gas inventories are relatively high or low, EIA uses the average inventories for that same week in each of the previous five years. Relatively low inventories heading into winter months can put upward pressure on natural gas prices. Conversely, relatively high inventories can put downward pressure on natural gas prices.

This week’s inventory level ends a 106-week streak of lower-than-normal natural gas inventories. Natural gas inventories in the Lower 48 states entered the winter of 2017–18 lower than the previous average. Episodes of relatively cold temperatures in the winter of 2017–18—including a bomb cyclone—resulted in record withdrawals from storage, increasing the deficit to the five-year average.

In the subsequent refill season (typically April through October), sustained warmer-than-normal temperatures increased electricity demand for natural gas. Increased demand slowed natural gas storage injection activity through the summer and fall of 2018. By November 30, 2018, the deficit to the five-year average had grown to 725 Bcf. Inventories in that week were 20% lower than the previous five-year average for that time of year. Throughout the 2019 refill season, record levels of U.S. natural gas production led to relatively high injections of natural gas into storage and reduced the deficit to the previous five-year average.

The deficit was also decreased as last year’s low inventory levels are rolled into the previous five-year average. For this week in 2019, the preceding five-year average is about 124 Bcf lower than it was for the same week last year. Consequently, the gap has closed in part based on a lower five-year average.

Lower 48 natural gas inventories, difference to five-year average

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Weekly Natural Gas Storage Report

The level of working natural gas inventories relative to the previous five-year average tends to be inversely correlated with natural gas prices. Front-month futures prices at the Henry Hub, the main price benchmark for natural gas in the United States, were as low as $1.67 per million British thermal units (MMBtu) in early 2016. At about that same time, natural gas inventories were 874 Bcf more than the previous five-year average.

By the winter of 2018–19, natural gas front-month futures prices reached their highest level in several years. Natural gas inventories fell to 725 Bcf less than the previous five-year average on November 30, 2018. In recent weeks, increasing the Lower 48 states’ natural gas storage levels have contributed to lower natural gas futures prices.

Lower 48 natural gas inventories and Henry Hub futures prices

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Weekly Natural Gas Storage Report and front-month futures prices from New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX)

October, 21 2019