In retrospect, it will be seen as a good decision. Petronas is pulling out of the US$29 billion Pacific Northwest LNG project in British Columbia, Canada. The Malaysian state oil company cited ‘prolonged depressed prices and shifts in the energy industry’ as the reasons for exiting the long-gestating project. The former refers to the current slump in LNG prices, which shows no sign of improving, and the latter refers to America’s LNG renaissance, founded not on mammoth expensive projects but nimble, dynamic plays. The decision to admit defeat has not been an easy one, but it is the right one.
The initially announced cancellation of Pacific Northwest LNG in the press, is the fifth major LNG export casualty in the last 18 months, joining Fisherman’s Landing and Browse in Australia, Oregon LNG in the USA, and Prince Rupert, also in British Columbia, to be shelved. The projects that would have joined Wheatstone, Gorgon, Ichthys and Prelude are now victims of the painful rebalancing the LNG industry has to undergo, as suppliers yield power to buyers, who for the first time in LNG history have a luxury of choice and are exerting their rights.
It might have been different, but Pacific Northwest also came under much pressure of local politics. Located in an environmentally sensitive area of British Columbia, environmentalists have railed against the project from the start, even as the Canadian federal government and the BC state government gave their approvals after extensive environment impact studies. Then in May, the ruling NDP lost their majority in BC state elections, forcing them to form a support coalition with the Green Party, vehemently opposed to the project. When that happened, the writing was always on the wall for PNW.
It is for the best. The nature of the geography at the PNW site required high costs to build the necessary infrastructure and pipelines, far higher than those smaller, more deft producers along the more established US Gulf. High costs require high prices to recoup. In the past, this would be solved by locking buyers into long-term contracts at fixed prices. That is no longer a popular option; not with US producers like Cheniere offering short, flexible contracts that countries like Japan, South Korea and China find extremely enticing. Then, battling hostile neighbours, Qatar lifted its moratorium on the vast North Field – planning to double production at the source of some of the cheapest gas in the world. You also have to consider all the African LNG projects being developed, many with stakes held by major Asian buyers, cutting off routes for Canadian supplies.
This is not the end of LNG in Canada. But it is a refocusing. The other partners in Pacific Northwest are looking at re-purposing the project, or parts of it, into a more cost-effective solution. Indian Oil has already said it will talk with the other partners – Sinopec, Japan’s Japex Montney and Petroleum Brunei - to scout for an alternative and cheaper site. Even Petronas reiterates that this is not the end of its presence in Canada, aiming to continue to develop natural gas assets and possibly even participate in Shell’s Kitimat LNG project, also in British Columbia. All players will be careful and approach new opportunities with caution. Expect more of this over the next five years, which will be a period of consolidation and recalibration of major LNG projects into a few golden eggs rather than a whole basket. It is better that a few projects stay on hold for now, then obstinately push ahead and cause a collapse of the industry.
Something interesting to share?
Join NrgEdge and create your own NrgBuzz today
The global oilfield scale inhibitor market was valued at USD 509.4 Million in 2014 and is expected to witness a CAGR of 5.40% between 2015 and 2020. Factors driving the market of oilfield scale inhibitor include increasing demand from the oil and gas industry, wide availability of scale inhibitors, rising demand for biodegradable and environment-compatible scale inhibitors, and so on.
Download PDF Brochure @ https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/pdfdownloadNew.asp?id=268225660
The oilfield scale inhibitor market is experiencing strong growth and is mainly driven by regions, such as RoW, North America, Asia-Pacific, and Europe. Considerable amount of investments are made by different market players to serve the end-user applications of scale inhibitors. The global market is segmented into major geographic regions, such as North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific, and Rest of the World (RoW). The market has also been segmented on the basis of type. On the basis of type of scale inhibitors, the market is sub-divided into phosphonates, carboxylate/acrylate, sulfonates, and others.
Carboxylate/acrylic are the most common type of oilfield scale inhibitor
Among the various types of scale inhibitors, the carboxylate/acrylate type holds the largest share in the oilfield scale inhibitor market. This large share is attributed to the increasing usage of this type of scale inhibitors compared to the other types. Carboxylate/acrylate meets the legislation requirement, abiding environmental norms due to the absence of phosphorus. Carboxylate/acrylate scale inhibitors are used in artificial cooling water systems, heat exchangers, and boilers.
RoW, which includes the Middle-East, Africa, and South America, is the most dominant region in the global oilfield scale inhibitor market
The RoW oilfield scale inhibitor market accounted for the largest share of the global oilfield scale inhibitor market, in terms of value, in 2014. This dominance is expected to continue till 2020 due to increased oil and gas activities in this region. The Middle-East, Africa, and South America have abundant proven oil and gas reserves, which will enable the rapid growth of the oilfield scale inhibitor market in these regions. Among the regions in RoW, Africa’s oilfield scale inhibitor market has the highest prospect for growth. Africa has a huge amount of proven oil reserves and is one of the leading oil producing region in the World. But political unrest coupled with lack of proper infrastructures may negatively affect oil and gas activities in this region.
Major players in this market are The Dow Chemical Company (U.S.), BASF SE (Germany), AkzoNobel Oilfield (The Netherlands), Kemira OYJ (Finland), Solvay S.A. (Belgium), Halliburton Company (U.S.), Schlumberger Limited (U.S.), Baker Hughes Incorporated (U.S.), Clariant AG (Switzerland), E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (U.S.), Evonik Industries AG (Germany), GE Power & Water Process Technologies (U.S.), Ashland Inc. (U.S.), and Innospec Inc. (U.S.).
Speak to Analyst @ https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/speaktoanalystNew.asp?id=268225660
Scope of the Report:
Get 10% FREE Customization on this Study @ https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/requestCustomizationNew.asp?id=268225660
Headline crude prices for the week beginning 9 December 2019 – Brent: US$64/b; WTI: US$59/b
Headlines of the week
In the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) International Energy Outlook 2019 (IEO2019), India has the fastest-growing rate of energy consumption globally through 2050. By 2050, EIA projects in the IEO2019 Reference case that India will consume more energy than the United States by the mid-2040s, and its consumption will remain second only to China through 2050. EIA explored three alternative outcomes for India’s energy consumption in an Issue in Focus article released today and a corresponding webinar held at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time.
Long-term energy consumption projections in India are uncertain because of its rapid rate of change magnified by the size of its economy. The Issue in Focus article explores two aspects of uncertainty regarding India’s future energy consumption: economic composition by sector and industrial sector energy intensity. When these assumptions vary, it significantly increases estimates of future energy consumption.
In the IEO2019 Reference case, EIA projects the economy of India to surpass the economies of the European countries that are part of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the United States by the late 2030s to become the second-largest economy in the world, behind only China. In EIA’s analysis, gross domestic product values for countries and regions are expressed in purchasing power parity terms.
The IEO2019 Reference case shows India’s gross domestic product (GDP) growing from $9 trillion in 2018 to $49 trillion in 2050, an average growth rate of more than 5% per year, which is higher than the global average annual growth rate of 3% in the IEO2019 Reference case.
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, International Energy Outlook 2019
India’s economic growth will continue to drive India’s growing energy consumption. In the IEO2019 Reference case, India’s total energy consumption increases from 35 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) in 2018 to 120 quadrillion Btu in 2050, growing from a 6% share of the world total to 13%. However, annually, the level of GDP in India has a lower energy consumption than some other countries and regions.
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, International Energy Outlook 2019
In the Issue in Focus, three alternative cases explore different assumptions that affect India’s projected energy consumption:
EIA’s analysis shows that the country's industrial activity has a greater effect on India’s energy consumption than technological improvements. In the IEO2019 Composition and Combination cases, where the assumption is that economic growth is more concentrated in manufacturing, energy use in India grows at a greater rate because those industries have higher energy intensities.
In the IEO2019 Combination case, India’s industrial energy consumption grows to 38 quadrillion Btu more in 2050 than in the Reference case. This difference is equal to a more than 4% increase in 2050 global energy use.