PetroChina, Sinopec transfer $56bn assets to PipeChina

Spanish Market: Natural gas
24/07/20

China's two biggest energy firms PetroChina and Sinopec have agreed to sell oil and gas infrastructure assets valued at 391.5bn yuan ($56bn) to China Oil and Gas Pipeline Network (PipeChina), paving the way for the new state-run pipeline company to start operations in the next few months.

The transactions, including the transfer of personnel and ownership of assets, are expected to be completed by 30 September. PipeChina is scheduled to start operations on the same date.

State-controlled PetroChina will transfer all 20 of its units that own oil and gas pipelines, which are valued at Yn268.7bn. These include the major 77bn m³/yr West-to-East pipeline network and the Chinese portion of the 38bn m³/yr Power of Siberia 1 gas pipeline from Russia.

In return, PetroChina will receive a 29.9pc stake in PipeChina, worth Yn149.5bn, plus a cash payment of Yn119.2bn. PetroChina will remain China's largest natural gas supplier following the spin-off of its pipeline assets.

Fellow state-run firm Sinopec will sell all of its natural gas and crude/fuel pipeline units to PipeChina for Yn122.7bn. It will receive a 14pc stake in the new firm and Yn52.7bn in cash in return. The sale includes Sinopec's 15bn m³/yr Sichuan-Shanghai and 30bn m³/yr Xinjiang-Guangdong natural gas pipelines, as well as its 6mn t/yr Beihai LNG terminal in Guangxi province.

Sinopec, like PetroChina, intends to focus more on upstream development, downstream gas sales and new opportunities following the spin-off of its assets.

The asset transfers effectively break up the dominance enjoyed by Sinopec, PetroChina and fellow state-owned firm CNOOC over oil and gas upstream and midstream infrastructure, including pipelines and distribution.

The agreements leave PetroChina and Sinopec as the two largest shareholders in PipeChina. The country's third major state-controlled energy firm, CNOOC, will own just 2.9pc of the new company.

CNOOC is the only major firm yet to announce an asset sale to PipeChina. It agreed to an asset management transfer with PipeChina in April but has not revealed details of the transaction.

LNG terminal transfers

Several of CNOOC's LNG receiving terminals are expected to be transferred to PipeChina. These include the 2.2mn t/yr Tianjin floating storage and regasification unit, the 2mn t/yr Yuedong and, 4mn t/yr Diefu terminals in Guangdong, the 600,000 t/yr Fangchenggang terminal in Guangxi and the 3mn t/yr Yangpu terminal in Hainan. Two of CNOOC's under-development terminals, the 3mn t/yr Zhangzhou project in Fujian and the 5mn t/yr Longkou facility in Shandong, will also be transferred to PipeChina after the first phase of construction is completed.

The 3mn t/yr Dalian terminal in Liaoning and the under-construction 4mn t/yr Diefu terminal are also expected to be transferred to PipeChina. These assets are owned by PetroChina subsidiary Kunlun Energy and are not included in today's deal, with Kunlun still in talks with PipeChina on the asset transfer.

Kunlun also owns four Shaanxi-Beijing gas pipelines with a combined capacity of 60bn m³/yr, which are also expected to come under PipeChina's ownership.

The other shareholders in PipeChina are investment firms China Chengtong Holdings and China Reform Holdings, each with 12.87pc stakes; the national social security fund with 10pc; China Insurance Investment with 9pc; regulatory watchdog the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission (Sasac) with 4.46pc; and sovereign wealth funds CIC International and the Silk Road Fund with 2pc each. All are state-owned.

PipeChina's diversified shareholding structure is an attempt to foster greater market competition and boost access to import and distribution facilities. Third-party access to terminals and pipelines has previously been restricted, or unavailable, to independent Chinese firms, including second-tier firms in the city gas and power sectors.

PipeChina was established in December 2019 as part of broader reform of China's domestic oil and gas industry, to create greater transparency, liquidity and competitiveness by liberalising the transmission system.

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.

26/12/24

Viewpoint: US gas market poised for more volatility

New York, 26 December (Argus) — US natural gas markets may be subjected to more dramatic price swings in 2025 as growing LNG exports and increasingly price-sensitive producers place greater pressure on the US' stagnant gas storage capacity. Those price swings could pose challenges for consumers without ample access to gas supplies, as well as producers interested in keeping some output unhedged to capture potentially higher prices without taking on excessive financial risk. But volatility may also present opportunities for traders looking to exploit unstable price spreads, and for producers that can adapt their operations to fit a more unpredictable pricing environment. Calm before the storm High storage levels and low spot prices this year — averaging $2.11/mmBtu through November this year at the US benchmark Henry Hub — triggered by an unusually warm 2023-24 winter, may have obscured some of the structural factors pushing the US gas market into a more volatile future. But those structural factors remain and loom increasingly large for prices. The US has moved from a roughly 60 Bcf/d (1.7bn m³/d) market eight years ago to a more than 100 Bcf/d market today, "and we haven't grown our storage capacity at all", Rich Brockmeyer, head of North American gas and power at commodity trading house Gunvor, said earlier this year. As supply and demand for US gas grow, the country's roughly 4.7-Tcf storage capacity becomes ever less effective in stemming demand shocks, such as extreme winter weather events, which can more rapidly draw down inventories than in years past. Additionally, a growing share of US gas is being consumed by LNG export terminals being built and expanded on the US Gulf coast. When those facilities encounter unexpected problems and cease operations — as has happened numerous times at the 2 Bcf/d Freeport LNG terminal in Texas in recent years — volumes that were previously being liquefied and sent overseas were instead backed up into the domestic market, crushing prices. More LNG exports may mean more opportunities for such supply shocks. US LNG exports are expected to increase by 15pc to almost 14 Bcf/d in 2025 as operations begin at Venture Global's planned 27.2mn t/yr Plaquemines facility in Louisiana and Cheniere's 11.5mn t/yr Corpus Christi, Texas, stage 3 expansion, US Energy Information Administration data show. Spot price volatility will be most acutely felt in regions like New England that lack underground gas storage. "In areas like the Gulf coast, where you have a lot of storage, it won't be a problem," Alan Armstrong, chief executive of Williams, the largest US gas pipeline company, told Argus in an interview. Producers' trade-off Volatile gas markets are a mixed bag for producers, many of whom profit from volatility while also struggling to plan and budget based on uncertain revenues for unhedged volumes. Though insufficient gas storage deprives the market of stability, "from the standpoint of a marketing and trading guy that's trying to manage my gas supply to customers and my trading book, I love volatility",said Dennis Price, vice president of marketing and trading at Expand Energy, the largest US gas producer by volume. BP chief financial officer Sinead Gorman in November 2023 specifically named Freeport LNG's eight-month-long shutdown in 2022-23 from a fire as a driver of volatility in the global gas market. The supermajor was able to exploit the "incredibly fragile" gas market, she said, which was a key factor driving the success of its integrated gas business. "Those opportunities are what we typically seek and enjoy," Gorman said. Increasingly, producers have also been adapting to a more volatile market by switching production on and off in response to prices, but often without revealing the price at which a supply response will occur. Expand Energy, for instance, told investors in October that it was amassing drilled but uncompleted wells and wells that had yet to be brought on line, which it could activate relatively quickly when prices rise. It declined to name the price at which that would occur. Market participants, attempting to price in this phenomenon by anticipating producers' next moves may respond more dramatically to supply signals than in the past, when production was steadier. Producers' increased responsiveness to prices could help to balance the market somewhat, though more aggressive intervention into operations could take a toll on well performance and pipelines, FactSet senior energy analyst Connor McLean said. Producers are "treating the reservoir itself like a storage facility", Price said. By Julian Hast Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Viewpoint: California dairy fight spills into 2025

24/12/24

Viewpoint: California dairy fight spills into 2025

Houston, 24 December (Argus) — California must begin crafting dairy methane limits next year as pressure grows for regulators to change course. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has committed to begin crafting regulations that could mandate the reduction of dairy methane as it locked in incentives for harvesting gas to fuel vehicles in the state. The combination has frustrated environmental groups and other opponents of a methane capture strategy they accuse of collateral damage. Now, tough new targets pitched to help balance the program's incentives could become the fall-out in a new lawsuit. State regulators have repeatedly said that the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) is ill-suited to consider mostly off-road emissions from a sector that could pack up and move to another state to escape regulation. California's LCFS requires yearly reductions of transportation fuel carbon intensity. Higher-carbon fuels that exceed the annual limits incur deficits that suppliers must offset with credits generated from the distribution to the state of approved, lower-carbon alternatives. Regulators extended participation in the program to dairy methane in 2017. Dairies may register to use manure digesters to capture methane that suppliers may process into pipeline-quality natural gas. This gas may then be attributed to compressed natural gas vehicles in California, so long as participants can show a path for approved supplies between the dairy and the customer. California only issues credits for methane cuts beyond other existing requirements. Regulators began mandating methane reductions from landfills more than a decade ago and in 2016 set similar requirements for wastewater treatment plants. But while lawmakers set a goal for in-state dairies to reduce methane emissions by 40pc from 2030 levels, regulators could not even consider rulemakings mandating such reductions until 2024. CARB made no move to directly regulate those emissions at their first opportunity, as staff grappled with amendments to the agency's LCFS and cap-and-trade programs. That has meant that dairies continue to receive credit for all of the methane they capture, generating deep, carbon-reducing scores under the LCFS and outsized credit production relative to the fuel they replace. Dairy methane harvesting generated 16pc of all new credits generated in 2023, compared with biodiesel's 6pc. Dairy methane replaced just 38pc of the diesel equivalent gallons that biodiesel did over the same period. The incentive has exasperated environmental and community groups, who see LCFS credits as encouraging larger operations with more consequences for local air and water quality. Dairies warn that costly methane capture systems could not be affordable otherwise. Adding to the expense of operating in California would cause more operations to leave the state. California dairies make up about two thirds of suppliers registered under the program. Dairy supporters successfully delayed proposed legislative requirements in 2023. CARB staff in May 2024 declined a petition seeking a faster approach to dairy regulation . Staff committed to take up a rulemaking considering the best way to address dairy methane reduction in 2025. Before that, final revisions to the LCFS approved in November included guarantees for dairy methane crediting. Projects that break ground by the end of this decade would remain eligible for up to 30 years of LCFS credit generation, compared with just 10 years for projects after 2029. Limits on the scope of book-and-claim participation for out-of-state projects would wait until well into the next decade. Staff said it was necessary to ensure continued investment in methane reduction. The inclusion immediately frustrated critics of the renewable natural gas policy, including board member Diane Tarkvarian, who sought to have the changes struck and was one of two votes ultimately against the LCFS revisions. Environmental groups have now sued , invoking violations that effectively froze the LCFS for years of court review. Regulators and lawmakers working to transition the state to cleaner air and lower-emissions vehicles will have to tread carefully in 2025. By Elliott Blackburn Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Viewpoint: US LPG cargo premiums poised to fall

23/12/24

Viewpoint: US LPG cargo premiums poised to fall

Houston, 23 December (Argus) — The booming US LPG export market has fueled record spot fees this year for terminal operators that send those cargoes abroad, but those fees are poised to fall next year as additional export capacity comes online. US propane exports surged over the past two years, hitting an all-time high of 1.85mn b/d in the first quarter of this year, according to data from the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). Terminal fees for spot propane cargoes out of the US Gulf coast hit an all-time high of Mont Belvieu +32.5¢/USG (+$169.325/t) in mid-September. US propane production is expected to grow by another 80,000 b/d in 2025 to 2.22mn b/d while the outlook for domestic consumption is fairly steady, at 820,000 b/d next year — meaning even more propane will be pushed into the waterborne market. But that is dependent on US infrastructure keeping up with the pace of production. US export terminals in Houston, Nederland and Freeport, Texas, have run at or above capacity for the last two years given the thirst for cheaper US feedstock, largely from propane dehydrogenation (PDH) plant operators in China. This demand has created bottlenecks at US docks, and midstream operators like Enterprise, Energy Transfer, and Targa have rushed to ramp up spending on both pipelines and additional refrigeration to stay ahead of the wave of additional production. US gas output spurs LPG exports As upstream producers have ramped up natural gas production ahead of new LNG projects, most producers are counting on LPG demand from international outlets in Asia to offload the ethane and propane the US cannot consume. For the past four years, Asian buyers have been more than happy to oblige. US propane exports to China rose from zero in 2019, when China imposed tariffs on US imports, to an average of 1.36mn metric tonnes (t) per month in January-November 2024, according to data from analytics firm Kpler, making China the largest offtaker of US shipments. US exports to Japan averaged 480,000t per month throughout most of 2024, and exports to Korea averaged 460,000t per month in the first 11 months of 2024. China, Korea, and Japan received 52pc of US propane exports in 2024, up from 49pc in 2020, according to data from Vortexa. Strong demand in Asia has kept delivered prices in Japan high enough to sustain an open arbitrage between the US and the Argus Far East Index (AFEI). Forward-month in-well propane prices at Mont Belvieu, Texas, have remained well below delivered propane on the AFEI. In 2020, Mont Belvieu Enterprise (EPC) propane averaged a $143/t discount to delivered AFEI — a spread that has only widened as additional PDH units in Asia have come online. During the first 11 months of 2024, the Mont Belvieu to AFEI spread averaged a hefty $219/t, leaving plenty of room for wider netbacks in the form of higher terminal fees for US sellers, especially as a wave of new VLGCs entering the global market has left shipowners with less leverage to take advantage of the wider arbitrage. The resulting wider arbitrage to Asia has kept US export terminals running full for the last two years. So when a series of weather-related events and maintenance in May-September limited the number of spot cargoes operators could sell and delayed scheduled shipments, term buyers willing to resell any of their loadings could effectively name their price. This spurred the record-high premiums for spot propane cargoes in September. New projects may narrow premium An increase in US midstream firm investments in additional dock capacity and added refrigeration in the years ahead could narrow those terminal fees, however. Announced projects from Enterprise and Energy Transfer, in particular, will add a combined 550,000 b/d of LPG export capacity out of Houston and Nederland, Texas by the end of 2026. Enterprise's new Neches River terminal project near Beaumont, Texas, will add another 360,000 b/d of either ethane or propane export capacity in the same timeframe. These additions are poised to limit premiums for spot cargoes by the end of 2025. Already, it appears the spike in spot cargo premiums to Mont Belvieu has abated for the rest of 2024. Spot terminal fees for propane sank to Mont Belvieu +14¢/USG by the end of November. The lower premiums come not only as terminals resume a more normal loading schedule, but at the same time a surplus of tons into Asia ahead of winter heating demand has narrowed the arbitrage. The spread between in-well EPC propane at Mont Belvieu fell from $214.66/t to $194.45/t during November. A backwardated market for AFEI paper into the second quarter of 2025 means US prices are poised to fall more in order to keep the spread from narrowing further. By Amy Strahan Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Viewpoint: US tax fight next year crucial for 45Z

23/12/24

Viewpoint: US tax fight next year crucial for 45Z

New York, 23 December (Argus) — A Republican-controlled Congress will decide the fate next year of a federal incentive for low-carbon fuels, setting the stage for a lobbying battle that could make or break existing investment plans. The 45Z tax credit, which offers greater subsidies to fuels that produce fewer emissions, is poised to kick off in January. Biofuel output has boomed during President Joe Biden's term, driven in large part by west coast refiners retrofitting facilities to process lower-carbon fats and oils into renewable diesel. The 45Z tax credit, created by the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), was designed to extend that growth. But Republicans will soon control Washington. President-elect Donald Trump has dismissed the IRA as the "Green New Scam", and Republicans on Capitol Hill, who had no role in passing Biden's signature climate legislation, are keen to cut climate spending to offset the steep cost of extending tax cuts from Trump's first term. Biofuels support is a less likely target for repeal than other climate policies, energy lobbyists say. But Republicans have already requested input on 45Z, signaling openness to changes. Republicans plan to use the reconciliation process, which enables them to avoid a Democratic filibuster in the Senate, to extend tax breaks that are scheduled to expire in 2025. "I want to place our industry in a place to make sure that the biofuels tax credit is part of reconciliation," said Kailee Tkacz Buller, president of the National Oilseed Processors Association. But lawmakers "could punt the biofuels discussion if stakeholders aren't aligned." A decade ago, biofuel policy was a simple tug-of-war between the oil and agriculture industries. Now many refiners formerly critical of the Renewable Fuel Standard produce ethanol and advanced biofuels themselves. And the increasingly diverse biofuels industry could complicate efforts to present a united front to Congress. Farm groups worry about carbon intensity scoring hurting crop demand and have lobbied to curtail record-high feedstock imports, to the chagrin of some biorefineries. Those producers are no monolith either: Biodiesel plants often rely more on local vegetable oils, while ethanol producers insist on keeping incentives that do not discriminate by fuel type and some oil majors would back subsidizing fuels co-processed with petroleum. Add airlines into the picture, which want greater incentives for aviation fuels, and marketers frustrated by 45Z shifting subsidies away from blenders — and the threat of fractious negotiations next year becomes clear. There are options for potential compromise, according to an Argus analysis of comments submitted privately to Republicans in the House of Representatives, as well as interviews with energy lobbyists and tax experts. The industry, frustrated by the Biden administration's delays in clarifying 45Z's rules, might welcome legislative changes that limit regulatory discretion regardless of what agency guidance eventually says. And lobbyists have floated various ways to appease agriculture groups without kneecapping biorefineries reliant on imports, including adding domestic content bonuses, imposing stricter requirements for Chinese-origin used cooking oil, and giving preference to close trading partners. Granted, unanimity among lobbyists is hardly a priority for Republican tax-writers. Reaching any consensus in the restive caucus, with just a handful of votes to spare in the House, will be difficult enough. "These types of bills always come to down to what's the most you can do before you start losing enough votes to pass it," said Jeff Navin, cofounder of the clean energy advocacy firm Boundary Stone Partners and a former House and Senate staffer. "Because they can only lose a couple of votes, there's not much more beyond that." And the caucus's goal of cutting spending makes an industry-wide goal — extending the 45Z credit into the 2030s — even more challenging. "It is a hard sell to get the extension right away," said Paul Winters, director of public affairs at Clean Fuels Alliance America. Climate costs Cost concerns also make less likely a simple return to the long-running blenders credit, which offered $1/USG across the board to biomass-based diesel. The US Joint Committee on Taxation in 2022 scored the two-year blenders extension at $5.5bn, while pegging three years of 45Z at less than $3bn. An inconvenient reality for Republicans skeptical of climate change is that 45Z's throttling of subsidies based on carbon intensity makes it more budget-friendly. Lawmakers have other reasons to not ignore emissions. Policies elsewhere, including California's low-carbon fuel standard and Europe's alternative jet fuel mandates, increasingly prioritize sustainability. The US deviating from that focus federally could leave producers with contradictory incentives, making it harder to turn a profit. And companies that have already sunk funds into reducing emissions — such as ethanol producers with heavy investments in carbon capture — want their reward. Incentives with bipartisan buy-in are likely more durable over the long run too. Next time Democrats control Washington, liberals may be more willing to scrap a credit they see as padding the profits of agribusiness — but less so if they see it as helping the US decarbonize. By Cole Martin Tax credit changes 40A Blenders Tax Credit 45Z Producers Tax Credit $1/USG Up to $1/USG for road fuels and up to $1.75/USG for aviation fuels depending on carbon intensity For domestic fuel blenders For domestic fuel producers Imported fuel eligible Imported fuel not eligible Exclusively for biomass-based diesel Fuels that produce no more than 50kg CO2e/mmBTU are eligible Feedstock-agnostic Carbon intensity scoring incentivizes waste over crop feedstocks Co-processed fuels ineligible Co-processed fuels ineligible Administratively simple Requires federal guidance on how to calculate carbon intensities for different feedstocks and fuel pathways Expiring after 2024 Lasts from 2025 through 2027 Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Japan’s Chugoku restarts Shimane nuclear reactor early

23/12/24

Japan’s Chugoku restarts Shimane nuclear reactor early

Osaka, 23 December (Argus) — Japanese utility Chugoku Electric Power restarted the 820MW Shimane No.2 nuclear reactor for test operations on 23 December, two days earlier than originally planned. The No.2 reactor at Shimane in west Japan's Shimane prefecture was reconnected to the country's power grids for the first time in nearly 13 years, after the reactor shut down in January 2012 for stricter safety inspections following the 2011 Fukushima nuclear meltdown disaster. Chugoku reactivated the Shimane No.2 reactor on 7 December, aiming to resume power generation on 25 December. But the target date for commercial operations remained unchanged on 10 January, despite the earlier than expected restart. The Shimane No.2 reactor will be a vital power source as the sole nuclear fleet in the Chugoku area, to help enhance the resilience of the power supply structure, stabilise retail electricity prices and reduce CO2 emissions, said Japan Atomic Industrial Forum's president Hideki Masui on 23 December. The Shimane No.2 reactor is the second boiling water reactor (BWR) to be restarted after the Fukushima disaster, following the 825MW Onagawa No.2 BWR unit that resumed test generation on 15 November, with normal operations scheduled to restart on 26 December. The BWR is the same type as that involved in the meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi plant. The restart of the two BWRs would pave the way for Japan's nuclear restoration, as 15 BWRs — including advanced BWRs — are still closed in the wake of the Fukushima disaster. Japan has restored 14 reactors as of 23 December, including the Shimane and Onagaw reactors, of which 12 are installed with a pressurised water reactor (PWR) design. Nuclear power's share The Japanese government last week set a target of 20pc for nuclear power's share in the country's draft power mix for the April 2040-March 2041 fiscal year, under the triennial review for the country's Strategic Energy Plan (SEP). Tokyo is seeking to restart all existing reactors to achieve the 20pc goal, adding that replacement reactors would also be possible. The draft SEP allows nuclear power operators that had decommissioned reactors to build next-generation reactors at their nuclear sites, not limited to the same site. The previous SEP did not mention building new reactors or replacements. Japan's Federation of Electric Power Companies (FEPC) has applauded this progress, but FEPC chairman Kingo Hayashi noted that it was disappointing the SEP did not mention a nuclear capacity target which the FEPC had requested. It also did not include building new reactors or the expansion of existing nuclear plants, Hayashi added. By Motoko Hasegawa Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

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