Latest market news

Demand destruction hits European gas market

  • Market: Natural gas
  • 14/10/21

Gas demand from industry in major European gas-consuming countries has begun to fall as an increasing number of plants that produce steel, chemicals and other products either curtail output or close in response to record-high wholesale prices.

According to Argus analysis, industries in Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy, France, Poland, the UK and Portugal consumed a combined 3.27 TWh/d of gas last week — the lowest for calendar week 41 since at least 2017, including during the Covid-19 lockdowns of 2020 and 2021.

That weekly figure is about 8pc lower than the 3.57 TWh/d consumed in the same period last year and 4pc below the three-year average of 3.42 TWh/d.

As of last week, industrial gas demand in these eight economies this year had averaged 3.55 TWh/d, slightly higher than the same period in 2020 and 2017, but shy of the averages of 3.56 TWh/d in pre-Covid 2019 and 3.69 TWh/d in 2018.

In recent months, industrial gas consumption trends in the eight countries — which represent the bulk of that type of European demand — have defied seasonal norms and suggest that a variety of energy-intensive firms will continue cutting operations in the coming weeks and months (see European, German demand graphs).

In a typical calendar year, gas consumption by major European industrial economies follows a U-shape, hitting a post-new year high around February, gradually declining toward an annual low during summer holidays in July and August, then recovering to a second peak before Christmas.

This year, industrial gas use generally followed seasonal trends until mid-September when demand abruptly fell by over 100 GWh/d to low levels unseen in recent years, before continuing on a diminished upward trajectory.

At that time, wholesale gas markets were rallying, with front-month benchmarks at the Dutch TTF and UK NBP hubs steadily rising toward peaks of €117-120/MWh on 5 October, in the face of winter supply concerns, low storage inventories in key markets and rallying LNG prices.

UK weighs on demand

While most countries have experienced lower industrial demand to some degree, the UK emerges as a driving force behind this wave of demand destruction, when established industrial consumers cut or effectively stop using gas (see UK demand graphs).

Rallying gas prices prompted a handful of industrial consumers across the continent to reduce operations last month, including CF Industries, which announced plans in mid-September to temporarily close two UK fertiliser plants.

Around the same time, while industries across Europe considered their options, a number of UK steel plants and Spanish silicon producer Ferroglobe either stepped down or idled plants, citing higher power prices, driven in part by costly in-feed from gas-fired plants across Europe.

Front-month gas prices have eased somewhat this week to €85-95/MWh, but remain more than four times higher than at the start of 2021. Accordingly, the spectre of demand destruction looms over the UK and its European neighbours, with Spanish steelmaker Sidenor Group announcing it would temporarily take its Basauri plant off line at the start of this week.

It is unclear how far European demand will fall, as different businesses are coping in different ways.

The UK-based Major Energy Users Council (MEUC), which represents large-scale consumers such as Network Rail and Transport for London, told Argus that while long-term energy supply contracts have helped businesses weather the storm, their forward positions are anything but certain.

"I am not aware of any member reducing output or closing, in fact in most cases they cannot contemplate doing so," MEUC technical director Eddie Proffitt said. "In most cases, members take a sensible approach to energy buying, hedging various volumes going forward... the increase is hitting them, but not for the whole of their bill."

But as fixed-price contracts near expiry, some MEUC members shopping for energy have only been able to source quotes from their current suppliers at "massive increases", he said. "There are even requests for deposits or parent-company guarantees," he added.

While certain industries, including glass making, are reportedly considering substituting fuel oil for natural gas in certain processes, sustained high gas prices suggest a combination of further demand destruction and higher retail prices for certain products.

Weekly European industrial gas demand TWh/d

Weekly German industrial demand TWh/d

Weekly UK industrial gas demand mn m³/d

Sharelinkedin-sharetwitter-sharefacebook-shareemail-share

Related news posts

Argus illuminates the markets by putting a lens on the areas that matter most to you. The market news and commentary we publish reveals vital insights that enable you to make stronger, well-informed decisions. Explore a selection of news stories related to this one.

News
03/01/25

Eni ready for FID on Mozambique’s Coral Norte FLNG

Eni ready for FID on Mozambique’s Coral Norte FLNG

London, 3 January (Argus) — Italian energy firm Eni is ready to take a final investment decision (FID) on its planned 3.4mn t/yr Coral Norte floating liquefaction (FLNG) terminal in Mozambique, should the project receive authorisation from the country's government, the firm has told Argus . Eni said it expects the government's approval to be "imminent", although it did not provide a more detailed timeline. The firm said in June 2023 that it planned to start operations at the FLNG in the second half of 2027. Eni already operates Mozambique's 3.4mn t/yr Coral Sul FLNG, which started operations in late 2022 and is at present the country's only LNG terminal. Coral Norte is set to be installed 20km north of Coral Sul. There are also two onshore terminals planned for Mozambique — the TotalEnergies-led 13.1mn t/yr Mozambique LNG project and ExxonMobil's 18mn t/yr Rovuma LNG project. Both are located in the Cabo Delgado province and have been halted because of security concerns. TotalEnergies reached a financial close on their Mozambique project in 2019 and declared force majeure in 2021, though project partner Bharat Petroleum (BPCL) said in late October 2024 the force majeure could be lifted in January or February this year because of an improvement in the security situation. And ExxonMobil said in November last year it was planning to take FID on the Rovuma project at the start of 2026. By Cerys Edwards Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Find out more
News

Q&A: EU biomethane internal market challenged


02/01/25
News
02/01/25

Q&A: EU biomethane internal market challenged

London, 2 January (Argus) — The European Commission needs to provide clearer guidance on implementing existing rules for the cross-border trade of biomethane to foster a cohesive internal market as some EU member states are diverging from these standards, Vitol's Davide Rubini and Arthur Romano told Argus. Edited excerpts follow. What are the big changes happening in the regulation space of the European biomethane market that people need to watch out for? While no major new EU legislation is anticipated, the focus remains on the consistent implementation of existing rules, as some countries diverge from these standards. Key challenges include ensuring mass-balanced transport of biomethane within the grid, accurately accounting for cross-border emissions and integrating subsidised biomethane into compliance markets. The European Commission is urged to provide clearer guidance on these issues to foster a cohesive internal market, which is essential for advancing the EU's energy transition and sustainability objectives. Biomethane is a fairly mature energy carrier, yet it faces significant hurdles when it comes to cross-border trade within the EU. Currently, only a small fraction — 2-5pc — of biomethane is consumed outside of its country of production, highlighting the need for better regulatory alignment across member states. Would you be interested in seeing a longer-term target from the EU? The longer the visibility on targets and ambitions, the better it is for planning and investment. As the EU legislative cycle restarts with the new commission, the initial focus might be on the climate law and setting a new target for 2040. However, a review of the Renewable Energy Directive (RED) is unlikely for the next 3-4 years. With current targets set for 2030, just five years away, there's insufficient support for long-term investments. The EU's legislative cycle is fixed, so expectations for changes are low. Therefore, it's crucial that member states take initiative and extend their targets beyond 2030, potentially up to 2035, even if not mandated by the EU. Some member states might do so, recognising the need for longer-term targets to encourage the necessary capital expenditure for the energy transition. Do you see different interpretations in mass balancing, GHG accounting and subsidies? Interpretations of the rules around ‘mass-balancing', greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions accounting and the usability of subsidised biomethane [for different fuel blending mandates] vary across EU member states, leading to challenges in creating a cohesive internal market. When it comes to mass-balancing, the challenges arise in trying to apply mass balance rules for liquids, which often have a physically traceable flow, to gas molecules in the interconnected European grid. Once biomethane is injected, physical verification becomes impossible, necessitating different rules than those for liquids moving around in segregated batches. The EU mandates that sustainability verification of biomethane occurs at the production point and requires mechanisms to prevent double counting and verification of biomethane transactions. However, some member states resist adapting these rules for gases, insisting on physical traceability similar to that of liquids. This resistance may stem from protectionist motives or political agendas, but ultimately it results in non-adherence to EU rules and breaches of European legislation. The issue with GHG accounting often stems from member states' differing interpretations of the IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Some states, like the Netherlands, argue that mass balance is an administrative method, which the guidelines supposedly exclude. Mass balancing involves rigorous verification by auditors and certifying bodies, ensuring a robust accounting system that is distinct from book and claim methods. This distinction is crucial because mass balance is based on verifying that traded molecules of biomethane are always accompanied by proofs of sustainability that are not a separately tradeable object. In fact, mass balancing provides a verifiable and accountable method that is perfectly aligned with UN guidelines and ensuring accurate GHG accounting. The issue related to the use of subsidised volumes of biomethane is highly political. Member states often argue that if they provide financial support — directly through subsidies or indirectly through suppliers' quotas — they should remain in control of the entire value chain. For example, if a member state gives feed-in tariffs to biomethane production, it may want to block exports of these volumes. Conversely, if a member state imposes a quota to gas suppliers, it may require this to be fulfilled with domestic biomethane production. No other commodity — not even football players — is subject to similar restrictions to export and/or imports only because subsidies are involved. This protectionist approach creates barriers to internal trade within the EU, hindering the development of a unified biomethane market and limiting the potential for growth and decarbonisation across the region. The Netherlands next year will implement two significant pieces of legislation — a green supply obligation for gas suppliers and a RED III transposition. The Dutch approach combines GHG accounting arguments with a rejection of EU mass-balance rules, essentially prohibiting biomethane imports unless physically segregated as bio-LNG or bio-CNG. This requirement contradicts EU law, as highlighted by the EU Commission's recent detailed opinion to the Netherlands . France's upcoming blending and green gas obligation, effective in 2026, mandates satisfaction through French production only. Similarly, the Czech Republic recently enacted a law prohibiting the export of some subsidised biomethane . Italy's transport system, while effective nationally, disregards EU mass balance rules. These cases indicate a deeper political disconnect and highlight the need for better alignment and communication within the EU. We know you've been getting a lot of questions around whether subsidised bio-LNG is eligible under FuelEU. What have your findings been? The eligibility of subsidised bio-LNG under FuelEU has been a topic of considerable enquiry. We've sought clarity from the European Commission, as this issue intersects multiple regulatory and legal frameworks. Initially, we interpreted EU law principles, which discourage double support, to mean that FuelEU, being a quota system, would qualify as a support scheme under Article 2's definition, equating quota systems with subsidies. However, a commission representative has publicly stated that FuelEU does not constitute a support scheme and thus is not subject to this interpretation. On this basis, FuelEU would not differentiate between subsidised and unsubsidised bio-LNG. A similar rationale applies to the Emissions Trading System, which, while not a quota obligation, has been deemed to not be a support scheme. Despite these clarifications, the use of subsidised biomethane across Europe remains an area requiring further elucidation from European institutions. It is not without risks, and stakeholders require more definitive guidance to navigate the regulatory landscape effectively. By Emma Tribe and Madeleine Jenkins Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

News

Viewpoint: US Supreme Court tees up more energy cases


31/12/24
News
31/12/24

Viewpoint: US Supreme Court tees up more energy cases

Washington, 31 December (Argus) — The US Supreme Court is on track for another term that could significantly affect the energy sector, with rulings anticipated in the new year that could narrow environmental reviews and challenge California's authority to set its own tailpipe standards. The Supreme Court earlier this month held arguments in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v Eagle County, Colorado , a case in which the justices are being asked to decide whether federal rail regulators adequately studied the environmental effects of a proposed 88-mile railway that would transport 80,000 b/d of crude. A lower court last year found the review, prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), should have analyzed how building the project would affect drilling and refining. Business groups want the Supreme Court to issue an expansive ruling that would limit NEPA reviews only to "proximate" effects, such as how rail traffic could affect nearby wildlife, rather than reviewing distance effects. The court recently agreed to hear a separate case that could restrict California's unique authority under the Clean Air Act to issue its own greenhouse gas regulations for newly sold cars and pickup trucks that are more stringent than federal standards. Oil refiners and biofuel producers in that case, Diamond Alternative Energy v EPA , say they should have "standing" to advance a lawsuit challenging those standards — even though they could now show prevailing in the case would change fuel demand — based on the alleged "coercive and predictable effects of regulation on third parties". These two cases, likely to be decided by the end of June, follow on the heels of the court's blockbuster decision in June overturning the decades-old "Chevron deference", a foundation for administration law that had given federal agencies greater flexibility when writing regulations. Last term, the court also limited agency enforcement powers and halted a rule targeting cross-state air pollution sources. This term's cases are unlikely to have as far-reaching consequences for the energy sector as overturning Chevron. But industry officials hope the two pending cases will provide clarity on issues that have been problematic for developers, including the scope of federal environmental reviews and the ability of industry to win legal "standing" to bring lawsuits. Two other cases could have significant effects for the oil sector, if the court agrees to consider them at a conference set for 10 January. Utah has a pending complaint before the court designed to force the US to dispose of 18.5mn acres of "unappropriated" federal land in the state, including oil-producing acreage. Utah argues that indefinitely retaining the land — which covers about a third of Utah — is unconstitutional. In another pending case, Sunoco and other oil companies have asked for a ruling that could halt a series of lawsuits filed against them in state courts for alleged damages from greenhouse gas emissions. President-elect Donald Trump's re-election could create complications for cases pending before the Supreme Court, if the incoming administration adopts new legal positions. Trump plans to nominate John Sauer, who successfully represented Trump in his presidential immunity case, as his solicitor general before the Supreme Court. By Chris Knight Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

News

Viewpoint: Permian waiting on new gas lines


30/12/24
News
30/12/24

Viewpoint: Permian waiting on new gas lines

Houston, 30 December (Argus) — Natural gas prices in the Permian basin of west Texas and southeast New Mexico fell to historic lows in 2024, with increased takeaway out of the region likely not picking up before 2026. Gas in the Permian basin is fundamentally tied to crude economics, with associated gas being a byproduct of crude-directed drilling. US benchmark WTI values continued to boost crude output in 2024, with month-ahead Nymex WTI futures for delivery in 2024 averaging $76.20/bl, down from $78/bl in 2023, but still much higher than in previous years since 2014. As of the week ended 20 December, the Permian basin rig count stood at 304 rigs, down by only five rigs from the same time a year prior , according to oilfield service provider Baker Hughes. The vast majority of those rigs were crude-directed. Strong associated gas output has frequently pushed spot prices at the Waha hub in west Texas into negative territory since 2019. Waha prices held positive through 2021, helped in part by increased takeaway capacity, before turning negative in four trading sessions in 2022 and seven sessions in 2023. Negative Waha prices were a much more regular feature in 2024, with sellers needing to pay buyers to take Permian gas for about 47pc of the trading sessions throughout January-November. The Waha index fell to -$7.085/mmBtu on 29 August, a historic low. But prices averaged above $2/mmBtu from the middle of November into the first half of December , buoyed by seasonally stronger demand and the end of planned and unplanned maintenance on several Permian pipelines. Spot prices at the Waha hub returned below $1/mmBtu in the final full week of December, as unseasonably mild weather crimped demand. The January-March block for Waha was $2.235/mmBtu as of 27 December, according to Argus forward curves. Spot prices often have been negative despite growing export demand from the LNG sector and for pipeline flows to Mexico. Even excluding potential flows through the most recently commissioned 1.7 Bcf/d (17.6bn m³/yr) ADCC pipeline in south Texas, aggregate feedgas flows to US liquefaction facilities edged higher to 12.9 Bcf/d in January-November from 12.75 Bcf/d a year earlier. Pipeline exports to Mexico rose to 6.06 Bcf/d in January-September from 5.7 Bcf/d a year earlier, US Energy Information Administration (EIA) data show. Pipelines out of the Permian have typically taken little time to reach capacity, as was the case when US firm Kinder Morgan's Gulf Coast Express and Permian Highway pipelines opened in 2019 and 2020, respectively, and more recently in 2021 with the Whistler pipeline. Similarly, flows on the 2.5 Bcf/d Matterhorn Express Pipeline quickly ramped up in October after the line began taking on gas in September. Takeaway capacity out of the Permian is not planned to rise much further before 2026. Several large new pipelines remain under construction or in the planning stage, including the 2 Bcf/d Apex and 2.5 Bcf/d Blackcomb pipelines, both due to enter service in 2026. Oneok's 2.8 Bcf/d Saguaro Connector pipeline is not expected before 2027. Targa's proposed Apex Pipeline, which would link the Permian to the Port Arthur LNG project, remains under consideration. Oversupply led to output cuts in more gas-directed fields in the US in 2024, but Permian gas production has been immune to the low price environment. Low or negative prices at Waha may eventually spur output cuts in the oil-oriented Permian, but that would require WTI prices falling closer to breakeven. Permian producers need WTI to be at a minimum of $62/bl to profitably drill a new well, while the breakeven price for an existing well was $38/bl, according to an April survey by consumer data platform Statista. Producers such as Chevron do plan to curb spending in the region by as much as 10pc in 2025. Chief executive Mike Wirth noted in the company's third quarter 2024 earnings call that Permian "growth will become less the driver and free cash flow will become more of the driver". Yet Permian gas, which accounts for roughly a fifth of US output, is still set to rise to 26.1 Bcf/d in 2025 from a projected 24.8 Bcf/d in 2024, according to the US EIA's December Short-Term Energy Outlook . By David Haydon Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

News

Trump’s LNG plans could shape Mexico’s gas ambitions


27/12/24
News
27/12/24

Trump’s LNG plans could shape Mexico’s gas ambitions

Mexico City, 27 December (Argus) — US president-elect Donald Trump's pledge to lift the pause on LNG export permits to non-free trade agreement (non-FTA) countries could reshape Mexico's LNG ambitions and its role in global gas trade. Trump, set to take office on 20 January, has vowed to reverse a decision by President Joe Biden's administration in January 2024 to halt LNG export permits pending a study on their environmental and economic impacts. This decision directly affects all seven LNG export terminals planned on Mexico's west coast, which together represent nearly 60 million tonnes (t)/year of projected export capacity. These projects rely on permits to sell LNG to non-FTA nations, making them pivotal in positioning the US and Mexico — bolstered by prolific gas production from the Permian Basin — as a top global LNG player. Yet, even with permitting renewed under Trump, domestic US politics could pose risks to Mexico's LNG projects. "The US has a fundamental interest in accelerating west coast Mexican LNG development," said Joe Webster, senior fellow at the Atlantic Council's Global Energy Center. "Constructing LNG terminals in this region would address the Permian Basin's increasingly ‘gassy' gas/oil ratio while strengthening energy ties with the Indo-Pacific." But not everyone agrees. Another market source told Argus that Trump's recent rhetoric about regaining control of the Panama Canal suggests his government may favor US-based LNG facilities over Mexican projects. Additionally, the Republican-led Congress could complicate matters. In October, Alaska Senator Dan Sullivan proposed legislation to restrict gas exports to "corrupt governments," explicitly including Mexico. With Republicans controlling both chambers, such measures could gain traction if Trump backs them to further his broader agenda. Trump's priorities lie in migration, security and inward investment, said Duncan Wood, president of the Pacific Council on International Policy. Trump is likely to leverage US-Mexico energy relations, including unresolved US-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) trade agreement disputes, to pursue these goals. Permit deadlines loom Four of Mexico's seven Pacific LNG projects already hold non-FTA permits, including Alliance LNG's Amigo project in Guaymas; Sempra's ECA Phase 2, Ensenada; Mexico Pacific's Saguaro Energia LNG Phases 1 and 2, Puerto Libertad; and Vista Pacifico, Topolobampo; a joint venture between Sempra, TotalEnergies, and CFEnergia. These permits have expiration dates requiring the projects to begin operations or apply for extensions. Alliance and Vista Pacifico hold permits valid until 2027 and 2029, respectively, but Saguaro's permit expires in December 2025, and ECA Phase 2 must begin by March 2026. Without final investment decisions, these projects risk missing their deadlines, even with Trump's Department of Energy (DOE) potentially easing extensions. The permitting pause in 2024 may have already delayed timelines and hurt investor confidence. Whether Trump's reversal mitigates this damage remains to be seen. Meanwhile, the Biden administration's recent study on LNG permitting warns that unchecked approvals could increase global greenhouse gas emissions and raise domestic natural gas prices. While this study may carry little weight under Trump, it could entrench anti-LNG sentiment among Democrats. Still, as US LNG exports are expected to double by 2028, Democrats with national ambitions may adopt a more pragmatic stance, Webster said. Trump also inherits a new dynamic with Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum. Initial interactions between the two have been cordial but tense. "Mexico's stance on US LNG exports remains unclear," Webster said. While Sheinbaum aligns with environmental movements, her pragmatic streak may lead her to use LNG projects as leverage in negotiations with Trump. By James Young Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Generic Hero Banner

Business intelligence reports

Get concise, trustworthy and unbiased analysis of the latest trends and developments in oil and energy markets. These reports are specially created for decision makers who don’t have time to track markets day-by-day, minute-by-minute.

Learn more