NrgEdge Editor

Sharing content and articles for users
Last Updated: May 7, 2019
1 view
Business Trends
image

Power plants in Saudi Arabia burned an average 0.4 million barrels per day (b/d) of crude oil in 2018 directly for power generation, the lowest amount since at least 2009, the earliest year that data are available from the Joint Organizations Data Initiative (JODI, Figure 1). According to the JODI data, compared with all other countries, Saudi Arabia burns by far the largest amount of crude oil directly for power generation. Between 2015 and 2017, Iraq used the second-largest amount of crude oil for power generation (over 150,000 b/d on average), but has significantly reduced its direct crude burn since then.

Figure 1. Saudi Arabia direct use of crude oil for power generation (2014 - 2018)

During the summer months, Saudi Arabia typically experiences an increase in electricity consumption as domestic demand for air conditioning rises. Saudi Arabia relies on crude oil and other fossil fuels, such as petroleum products and natural gas, for power generation. Saudi Arabia’s direct crude burn reached a record high during the summer of 2015, averaging 0.9 million b/d from June to August. In comparison, direct crude burn in the summer of 2018 was 41% lower at 0.5 million b/d.

Despite continued, steady increases in both population and electricity consumption, Saudi Arabia managed to reduce its reliance on crude oil for power generation by increasing the use of other energy sources, such as natural gas and fuel oil. Most of the natural gas that Saudi Arabia produces is associated gas, which is natural gas produced along with crude oil from an oil well. In recent years, however, nonassociated natural gas production has increased. The Wasit gas plant reached its full operating capacity of 2.5 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) in 2016. The plant was built to process nonassociated gas, which it is currently processing from the Hasbah and Arabiyah offshore gas fields, both of which began production in 2016. Saudi Arabia is investing in more natural gas processing capacity, including the construction of the Fadhili gas plant, which will be able to process nonassociated natural gas from both on- and offshore fields. The Fadhili gas plant is expected to be completed by the end of 2019 with a capacity of 2.5 Bcf/d. Consumption of natural gas in Saudi Arabia has steadily increased, averaging 10.6 Bcf/d in 2017, the latest year for which data are available (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Saudi Arabi natural gas and fuel oil consumption

In addition to natural gas, Saudi Arabia has also been using fuel oil as a partial replacement of crude oil in power generation. High-sulfur fuel oil is a relatively cheap petroleum product that can be used to fuel marine vessels and can also be used for power generation. However, because of environmental concerns and competition with other fuels, fuel oil consumption has been generally declining in most regions in the world. In Saudi Arabia, however, fuel oil consumption rose 25% between 2015 and 2018 to 0.5 million b/d on average, according to JODI data. Some trade press reports indicate that one potential side effect of the upcoming changes to the sulfur limits in marine fuels in 2020 is that the stranded high-sulfur fuel oil could be sent to Saudi Arabia to further replace crude oil in power generation.

With less crude oil directly being used for power generation, more crude oil is available for domestic refining and exports. For many years, Saudi Arabia has been working to increase its domestic refinery capacity. Saudi Arabia is able to process 2.9 million b/d of crude oil domestically, which will rise further after the startup of the 400,000-b/d Jazan refinery, which may come online in 2019. Because of its refinery additions, Saudi Arabia has been able to process more of its crude oil domestically. Crude oil refinery runs averaged roughly 1.8 million b/d in 2009 and subsequently rose to an average of 2.6 million b/d by 2018, according to JODI data (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Saudi Arabi crude oil refinery intake and petroleum product exports

As a result of increased refinery runs, Saudi Arabia was also able to increase the amount of petroleum products it could export. Exports of petroleum products more than quadrupled between 2009 and 2018, from 0.4 million b/d to 2.0 million b/d. Saudi Arabia exports more diesel than any other petroleum product, averaging 0.8 million b/d in 2018. Gasoline and fuel oil were the next two most exported petroleum products in 2018 at 0.4 million b/d and 0.3 million b/d, respectively. Saudi Arabia also imports petroleum products; however, over the past several years, Saudi Arabia has generally become a net exporter of most products, according to JODI data.

In addition to refining more crude oil domestically, using less crude oil in power generation can enable Saudi Arabia to increase crude oil exports, if needed. However, in late 2016 and in late 2018, Saudi Arabia, along with other members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and some non-OPEC countries, agreed to voluntarily cut crude oil production in order to prevent further declines in crude oil prices. These agreements resulted in lower production of crude oil in Saudi Arabia, which is a more significant factor in how much crude oil the country has available to export throughout the year (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Saudi Arabi crude oil production and exports

Furthermore, Saudi Arabia has been cutting production beyond its agreed-upon target, meaning that as Saudi Arabia’s crude oil production falls, production of associated natural gas will also decline. Declines in associated natural gas production could result in an increased need for crude oil used for power generation.

U.S. average regular gasoline and diesel prices increase

The U.S. average regular gasoline retail price rose nearly 5 cents from the previous week to $2.89 per gallon on April 29, 4 cents higher than the same time last year. The Rocky Mountain price rose over 8 cents to $2.84 per gallon, the East Coast and Gulf Coast prices both increased nearly 5 cents to $2.78 per gallon and $2.58 per gallon, respectively, and the Midwest and West Coast prices each rose over 4 cents to $2.77 per gallon and $3.67 per gallon, respectively.

The U.S. average diesel fuel price increased more than 2 cents to $3.17 per gallon on April 29, 1 cent higher than a year ago. The Rocky Mountain price increased 4 cents to $3.18 per gallon, the West Coast price increased more than 3 cents to $3.73 per gallon, the Gulf Coast and East Coast prices increased 2 cents to $2.94 per gallon and $ 3.19 per gallon, respectively, and the Midwest price increased nearly 2 cents to $3.06 per gallon.

Propane/propylene inventories rise

U.S. propane/propylene stocks increased by 1.2 million barrels last week to 58.9 million barrels as of April 26, 2019, 10.3 million barrels (21.1%) greater than the five-year (2014-2018) average inventory levels for this same time of year. Midwest, Rocky Mountain/West Coast, and East Coast inventories increased by 0.9 million barrels, 0.2 million barrels, and 0.1 million barrels, respectively, and Gulf Coast inventories increased slightly, remaining virtually unchanged. Propylene non-fuel-use inventories represented 9.6% of total propane/propylene inventories.

electricity electricity generating fuel mix international liquid fuels natural gas oil petroleum OPEC Saudi Arabia
3
1 0

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

Latest NrgBuzz

The Shale Showdown in 2020 – What’s Happening?

When asked in December about the projected slowdown in American shale output, the new US Energy Secretary shrugged off the notion, describing it as a mere ‘pause’. Blaming the expected slowdown to the ‘natural adjustments’ of oil and gas prices instead of a structural decline in production, Dan Brouilette is painting a rosy picture of US shale – where riches still lie underneath, waiting for the right price to be extracted. Of course he would paint such a picture. Brouilette is the new Energy Secretary, replacing Rick Perry. He couldn’t come in on a message of doom and gloom. But his pretty picture isn’t accurate either.

Schlumberger just posted a US$10 billion loss for the full year 2019, despite relatively flat y-o-y revenues. CEO Oliver Le Peuch called its international performance ‘positive’, but blamed ‘land market weakness’ causing a sharp decline in North American revenues and profits. Land market is code word for shale, and Schlumberger isn’t the only one facing problems. Halliburton announced a loss of US$1.1 billion in 2019, taking a US$2.2 billion charge on weakening US shale activity as North American revenue for Halliburton fell by 21% in 4Q19 and 18% for the whole year. While its results managed to beat analyst predictions – already stung by Schlumberger’s results – Halliburton doesn’t expect things to get rosier either, signalling that it expected ‘customer spending’ in North America to be down again in 2020.

And it isn’t just service companies suffering. US supermajor Chevron booked a US$11 billion write-down on a collection of assets in its latest set of financials, including on a major deepwater project in the Gulf of Mexico, the Kitimat LNG project in Canada and onshore Appalachian shale assets. Taken as a whole, the total impairment might coming from Chevron’s lowered forecast for oil and gas prices to the US$55-60/b range for 2020, but that shale was singled out is a major factor. And Chevron isn’t the only one. BP, Repsol and even ExxonMobil are expecting weakness. Only Shell and Total, who haven’t devoted as much attention to US shale, particularly the Permian, have been relatively insulated.  

Why is this happening? There are two different factors operating. From a producers’ standpoint, the rising tide of US shale output is contributing to weakening global prices  for oil – and that has a lot to do with the debt burden of existing US shale players, who have to keep drilling to pay off loans. Added conventional production coming online from Guyana, Brazil and Norway at the same time aren’t helping with prices either, despite OPEC+’s best intentions. From a service company’s perspective, firms like Schlumberger and Halliburton derive their revenue from drilling activity, not drilling output. And US drilling activity has dropped steeply over the past year, currently down by over 250 rigs according to the Baker Hughes weekly rig count. Much of this is onshore, principally in the Permian but also in other basins, as the once nimble and dynamic drillers are forced to stop activity either through bankruptcy or to shut shop temporarily as crude prices fall to uneconomical levels.

The US EIA has issued a new forecast, predicting that US shale output will slow down to a 1.1 mmb/d gain over 2020. That’s still optimistic, taking total US production to 13.3 mmb/d. In 2021, however, the EIA think output growth will fall even further, to an annual gain of just 400,000 b/d. Implicit to that forecast is that the EIA expects prices to remain subdued over the new two years, because shale drillers would respond to higher prices with increased drilling. There is also production structure to consider. Shale well produce immediate results, but show steep declines after. From 2012 to 2019, the amount of drilled but uncompleted (DUCs) wells – ie. wells that can be exploited within a short time frame – grew and grew; in the last 9 months, the glut of DUCs has shrunk – suggested that the industry is not drilling new wells as fast as they are completing already-drilled. Drilling activity has declined, and the chronic decline in the Baker Hughes active rig count – 18 of the last 21 weeks showed a net loss of rigs – is just proof of that.

It may not be the picture that Dan Brouilette wants to paint, but it is reality. The shale slowdown is real. It is also true that shale activity would increase if prices rose to more viable levels – say the US$65-70/b range – but let’s be honest, what are the odds of that happening when shale itself is the cause of weakening prices.

January, 28 2020
Flow Meter | Types Of Flow Meters From Nagmanflow

Nagman has diversified into dealing with Flow meters or Instruments viz Electro-Magnetic Flow Meters, Coriolis Mass Flow Meter, Positive Displacement Flow Meter, Vortex Flow Meter, Turbine Flow Meter, Ultrasonic Flow Meter.

Electro-Magnetic Flow Meter:
Size : DN 3 to DN 3000 mm
Flow Velocity : 0.5 m/s to 15 m/s
Accuracy : ±0.5%, ±0.2% of Reading

Coriolis Mass Flow Meter:
Size : DN8~DN300
Flow Range : 8 to 2500000 Kg/hr (for liquids)
4 to 2500000 Kg/hr (for gases)
Accuracy : 0.1% 0.2% 0.5% of Normal Flow Range

Positive Displacement Flow Meter:
Size : DN 15 ~ DN 400
Max. Flow Range : 0.3 m3/hr to 1800 m3/hr
(Will vary based on the measured media & temperature)
Accuracy : 0.1% 0.2% 0.5%

Vortex Flow Meter:
Size : DN 25 to DN 300
Flow Range : 1.3 m3/hr to 2000 m3/hr (Water)
8.0 m3/hr to 10000 m3/hr (Air)
Accuracy : ±1.0% of Reading

Turbine Flow Meter:
Size : DN 4 to DN 200
Flow Range : 0.02 m3 /hr to 680 m3 /hr
Accuracy : 1.0% or 0.5% of Rate

Ultrasonic Flow Meter:
Type : Hand held Ultrasonic Flow meter with S2, M2, L2 Sensors
Accuracy : ±1% of Reading at rates > 0.2 mps
Measuring Range : DN 15 – DN 6000


January, 24 2020
EIA expects U.S. net natural gas exports to almost double by 2021

In its Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO), released on January 14, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) forecasts that U.S. natural gas exports will exceed natural gas imports by an average 7.3 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) in 2020 (2.0 Bcf/d higher than in 2019) and 8.9 Bcf/d in 2021. Growth in U.S. net exports is led primarily by increases in liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports and pipeline exports to Mexico. Net natural gas exports more than doubled in 2019, compared with 2018, and EIA expects that they will almost double again by 2021 from 2019 levels.

The United States trades natural gas by pipeline with Canada and Mexico and as LNG with dozens of countries. Historically, the United States has imported more natural gas than it exports by pipeline from Canada. In contrast, the United States has been a net exporter of natural gas by pipeline to Mexico. The United States has been a net exporter of LNG since 2016 and delivers LNG to more than 30 countries.

In 2019, growth in demand for U.S. natural gas exports exceeded growth in natural gas consumption in the U.S. electric power sector. Natural gas deliveries to U.S. LNG export facilities and by pipeline to Mexico accounted for 12% of dry natural gas production in 2019. EIA forecasts these deliveries to account for an increasingly larger share through 2021 as new LNG facilities are placed in service and new pipelines in Mexico that connect to U.S. export pipelines begin operations.

Net U.S. natural gas imports from Canada have steadily declined in the past four years as new supplies from Appalachia into the Midwestern states have displaced some pipeline imports from Canada. U.S. pipeline exports to Canada have increased since 2018 when the NEXUS pipeline and Phase 2 of the Rover pipeline entered service. Overall, EIA projects the United States will remain a net natural gas importer from Canada through 2050.

U.S. pipeline exports to Mexico increased following expansions of cross-border pipeline capacity, averaging 5.1 Bcf/d from January through October 2019, 0.5 Bcf/d more than the 2018 annual average, according to EIA’s Natural Gas Monthly. The increase in exports was primarily the result of increased flows on the newly commissioned Sur de Texas–Tuxpan pipeline in Mexico, which transports natural gas from Texas to the southern Mexican state of Veracruz. Several new pipelines in Mexico that were scheduled to come online in 2019 were delayed are expected to enter service in 2020:

  • Pipelines in Central and Southwest Mexico (1.2 Bcf/d La Laguna–Aguascalientes and 0.9 Bcf/d Villa de Reyes–Aguascalientes–Guadalajara)
  • Pipelines in Western Mexico (0.5 Bcf/d Samalayuca–Sásabe)

U.S. LNG exports averaged 5 Bcf/d in 2019, 2 Bcf/d more than in 2018, as a result of several new facilities that placed their first trains in service. This year, several new liquefaction units (referred to as trains) are scheduled to be placed in service:

  • Trains 2 and 3 at Cameron LNG in Louisiana
  • Train 3 at Freeport LNG in Texas
  • Trains 5–10, six Moveable Modular Liquefaction System (MMLS) units, at Elba Island in Georgia

In 2021, the third train at the Corpus Christi facility in Texas is scheduled to come online, bringing the total U.S. liquefaction capacity to 10.2 Bcf/d (baseload) and 10.8 Bcf/d (peak). EIA expects LNG exports to continue to grow and average 6.5 Bcf/d in 2020 and 7.7 Bcf/d in 2021, as facilities gradually ramp up to full production.

monthly natural gas trade

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Natural Gas Monthly

January, 24 2020