36.66 0.00 (0.00%)
After hours: 4:29PM EST
|Bid||35.50 x 1200|
|Ask||36.68 x 1100|
|Day's Range||36.58 - 37.66|
|52 Week Range||35.56 - 49.30|
|Beta (5Y Monthly)||0.96|
|PE Ratio (TTM)||17.11|
|Forward Dividend & Yield||2.52 (6.81%)|
|Ex-Dividend Date||Feb 05, 2020|
|1y Target Est||N/A|
Oil prices fell again on Friday as the OPEC+ plans to deepen production cuts in order to counter bearish sentiment driven by Coronavirus demand fears hit a rut
(Bloomberg) -- Terms of Trade is a daily newsletter that untangles a world embroiled in trade wars. Sign up here. A grim situation for U.S. natural gas exporters has gotten even worse as the coronavirus outbreak sends global prices plunging on concern that China’s demand for the fuel will collapse.Suppliers of American liquefied natural gas were already under pressure from depressed prices arising from a global glut and an unusually mild domestic winter. Now, with the virus threatening to disrupt industrial production across China, Asian spot LNG prices have hit a record low.Faced with prospect of being unable to even cover their shipping costs, customers such as commodity trading houses may simply refuse to load U.S. cargoes. Those cancellations could force LNG export terminal operators to cap, or “shut in,” production of the fuel as their storage tanks fill up.“Forward prices for summer are now at levels where U.S. LNG shut-ins begin to seem viable,” said Edmund Siau, a Singapore-based analyst with energy consultant FGE. “There is usually a lead time before a cargo can be canceled, and we expect actual supply curtailments to start happening in summer.”Such an outcome would be a blow to the young and fast-expanding U.S. LNG industry. New export terminals from Maryland to Texas have sprung up to make the country one of the world’s top suppliers, while also providing a crucial outlet for soaring production from shale basins.China hasn’t directly imported LNG from the U.S. in a year amid trade tensions and tariffs on the fuel. But it’s the world’s fastest-growing buyer, and a slowdown or decline in demand there will have an effect that ripples right across the market. China’s big state-owned LNG importers are said to be considering force majeure declarations on contracted cargo deliveries, which would further burden an oversupplied market.Brimming global gas stockpiles are increasing the risk that cargoes will be curtailed, according to Nina Fahy, head of North American natural gas for Energy Aspects Ltd., and Madeline Jowdy, senior director of global gas and LNG for S&P Global Platts.“The full impact of the coronavirus on global gas markets is yet to be felt as lower LNG demand expectations for the Lunar New Year were already built into most forecasts,” Jowdy wrote in an email.“The global LNG outlook is going from bad to worse for suppliers.”For Cheniere Energy Inc., the biggest U.S. exporter of the fuel, “the summer doesn’t look good” for the economics of American cargoes at the moment, Eric Bensaude, managing director of the company’s marketing arm in London, said in an interview.Any decisions by Cheniere’s buyers, which include Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Korea Gas Corp., are likely in March or April. That’s a period of seasonally lower demand when the company anticipates “people will be assessing the situation,” Bensaude said.Customers of U.S. LNG terminals can typically opt out of taking contracted supplies with 30 to 60 days’ notice. Cheniere’s buyers have to pay a fee to cancel a cargo, Bensaude said.If a customer decides not to load a cargo, Cheniere’s marketing arm won’t take the LNG back and resell it unless market conditions have changed, Bensaude said. Instead, the company would typically reduce LNG production at its terminals, he said.But U.S. LNG companies continue to sound an upbeat note on the longer-term outlook for the market. Charif Souki, co-founder of terminal developer Tellurian Inc, said the global glut of the fuel could be erased as soon as a year from now. Cheniere’s Bensaude said he also expects the oversupply to ease.“We are going to weather the storm this year as the market should absorb production from the extra capacity that comes online,” Bensaude said.(Updates with Cheniere comments in 10th paragraph. An earlier corrected the attribution in the seventh paragraph.)To contact the reporters on this story: Anna Shiryaevskaya in London at firstname.lastname@example.org;Stephen Stapczynski in Singapore at email@example.com;Naureen S. Malik in New York at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Reed Landberg at email@example.com, ;Simon Casey at firstname.lastname@example.org, Christine Buurma, Joe CarrollFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
(BX)’s marquee corporate private-equity funds lagged far behind the S&P 500 index during 2019, an indication that the large size of the firm’s portfolio and challenging investment conditions may be weighing on results. Blackstone’s (ticker: BX) corporate private-equity funds had gross returns of 9.3% in 2019, way behind the S&P 500’s total return of 31.5%, and down from 19.1% in 2018, when the funds handily topped the S&P’s negative 4.4% return. Blackstone, the industry leader, didn’t provide net returns after fees, which can run at around 2% annually plus 20% of profits industrywide.
China has restarted talks with U.S. liquefied natural gas marketers to buy more LNG, several industry executives told Reuters, but they are worried that any purchases may come too late to keep natural gas prices from falling further due to a glut of global supply. China pledged this month to buy an additional $18.5 billion in U.S. energy products this year, but the U.S.-China trade agreement left tariffs in place, including a 25% levy on LNG imports that puts U.S. LNG at a disadvantage, producers said. "The U.S. doesn't have a margin that would allow any country to charge 25%" above global prices, said Michael Smith, chief executive of Freeport LNG, referring to the tariff.
(Bloomberg) -- In May, while President Donald Trump toured a new $10 billion plant designed to prepare natural gas for export, he made a vow. Such facilities would be good for the environment, he said, or they won’t get approved.The president has greenlit 11 projects so far, bringing the U.S. total to 18. Environmentalists once touted the fuel, nicknamed “freedom gas” by the Trump administration, as a better energy alternative, but an analysis shows the plants’ potential carbon dioxide emissions rival those of coal.Not all the export terminals are completed and in use, but if they were, simply operating them could spew 78 million tons of CO₂ into the air every year, according to data compiled by Bloomberg from environmental filings. That’s comparable to the emissions of 24 coal plants(3), or 18 gigawatts of coal-fired power—more than Kentucky’s entire coal fleet. And those numbers don’t account for the harm caused by transporting the gas from wellheads to processing facilities and then overseas, which can be significant.“The emissions from these projects can’t be squared with the sorts of drastic, drastic reductions we need in order to avoid catastrophic climate change,” says Nathan Matthews, a senior Sierra Club attorney.As long as natural gas stays in the pipeline, emissions remain relatively low. But the sprawling terminals that export the fuel use ozone-depleting refrigerants to supercool it into liquid form, called LNG. They also belch toxic gases such as sulfur dioxide and release excess methane, a greenhouse gas more immediately destructive to the atmosphere than CO₂.Proponents of exporting natural gas, including government officials, argue that it will help wean other countries off coal, and that additional emissions here are offset by lower emissions abroad. But natural gas’s role in global warming is complicated. While the fuel has been key to reducing U.S. emissions as it displaces coal-fired power, the electricity industry’s growing dependence on it has nevertheless “offset some of the climate gains from this coal decline,” according to the Rhodium Group. With the effects of climate change already supercharging wildfires and flooding some coastal communities, the surprise that emissions from LNG terminals rival those of coal plants is not a pleasant one.The surge in U.S. gas production has incentivized the buildout of other fossil-fuel infrastructure, such as petrochemical plants and pipelines. If all of them are built, they could add more than 500 million tons of carbon emissions annually by 2030, according to a study published in Environmental Research Letters.“Industrial emissions such as these, that increase, can move us further away from climate goals,” says Avi Zevin, senior attorney at the New York University School of Law’s Institute for Policy Integrity, which did its own study of LNG. “Operation of LNG terminals produces billions of dollars of climate damages every year, which have to be added to the damages from emissions of the transported gas that will ultimately be combusted.”The six export terminals currently in operation aren’t yet running at full capacity. At current operating levels, their maximum potential CO₂ emissions are equivalent to those of 5.2 coal-fired plants, according to Bloomberg calculations.The plant in Hackberry, Louisiana, that Trump celebrated last spring, Sempra Energy’s Cameron LNG terminal, has one of the largest potential carbon footprints in the analysis—37% higher than the average of 18 facilities Bloomberg(2)reviewed. The biggest potential polluter is Venture Global’s Plaquemines facility, also in Louisiana, whose emissions could be 58% higher than the average of all facilities. Sempra declined to comment, and Venture Global did not respond to emails or calls requesting comment.A 2016 federal assessment of the Cameron plant said it would spew a maximum of 9 million tons of CO₂ a year once it’s fully operational. That’s 328,000 tons of the pollutant for every 1 million tons of gas exported, according to Bloomberg calculations.Other plants have significantly smaller footprints. Annova LNG’s Brownsville terminal in Texas would emit just 59,000 tons of carbon dioxide for every 1 million tons of gas it exports, largely because it plans to use renewable energy rather than gas turbines to power the plant and has designed the facility to capture and recycle excess gas instead of releasing it into the atmosphere. “Annova LNG plans to be the lowest-carbon-emitting LNG export facility in the U.S. as part of its sustainability commitment,” the company said in a statement. Freeport LNG, which began exporting gas from its Texas facility last fall, plans to reduce its emissions “by over 90% relative to other plants,” by using electric-drive motors instead of combustion turbines, CEO Michael Smith said in a Jan. 17 statement. The reasons for the wide differences among plants are unclear, but some facilities generate their own electricity from natural gas rather than pulling it from a regional grid. That’s why, ultimately, Cheniere Energy Inc. sees a greater emissions intensity from its Louisiana terminal vs. the grid-reliant Texas facility, the company says. As of 2018, actual emissions from Cheniere’s two plants in Louisiana and Texas were lower than estimated in their environmental filings, according to EPA records. Both facilities are in the process of being expanded.“We’ve produced our LNG efficiently, lowering our emissions intensity,” said Fiji George, Cheniere’s director of climate and sustainability.The biggest customers for U.S. LNG are South Korea, Japan and—until recently—China. But global demand is softening. Some of the planned export terminals may never be built. Six of the 18 approved plants are already operating, and four are under construction. “China and India would have to grow much faster than they are currently to justify all of this LNG that is being sanctioned,” says Akos Losz, a nonresident fellow at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy. The U.S. build-out will require “lots of additional demand, and we’re not seeing that materializing.”Trade tensions have dimmed prospects for U.S. exports. China, one of the world’s biggest LNG importers, has cut purchases of American LNG by more than 80% since 2017. It’s unclear what effect the recent “phase one” trade deal between the U.S. and China will have on shipments.The federal agency charged with approving the projects, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, argues that higher carbon emissions in the U.S. must be weighed against the potential for lower emissions abroad. “The impacts from greenhouse gas emissions are the same no matter where the facility is located,” FERC Chairman Neil Chatterjee said in a statement. “LNG exports shouldn’t be compared to domestic emissions but looked at in the context of how they help address greenhouse gas emissions globally.”Emissions from the 18 planned natural gas export terminals would negate the carbon savings of all U.S. coal plants retired in 2018To be sure, LNG offers many environmental benefits compared with coal, which emits more particulate matter, leaves behind toxic waste, and contributes to acid rain. LNG’s lifecycle emissions—the amount of pollution generated from the moment the gas is pumped to the time it’s consumed—are also generally lower. A 2019 U.S. Energy Department report found that LNG exports to Europe and Asia generated lower lifecycle emissions than locally mined coal used for power generation.There is an exception. If the amount of methane leaked during gas production and transportation exceeds 3.1% over a 20-year period, LNG’s lifecycle emissions become comparable to those of locally mined coal, according to the agency. A 2018 report published in the journal Nature found that leaks across the U.S. now total 2.3% of oil and natural gas production. That figure doesn’t include flaring, or the intentional burning of methane, which has different impact on carbon emissions. In the Permian basin, the world’s highest-producing oil field, the largest producers are flaring an additional 5.1%, according to Rystad Energy.FERC’s environmental reviews rely heavily on data and estimates supplied by developers. The agency almost never rejects applications due to environmental concerns. Last year, the commission announced plans to open an office in Houston dedicated to expediting approvals of LNG infrastructure, doubling down on the Trump administration’s commitment to gas exports.(Michael Bloomberg, founder and majority owner of Bloomberg LP, the parent company of Bloomberg News, has committed $500 million to launch Beyond Carbon, a campaign aimed at closing the remaining coal-powered plants in the U.S. by 2030 and slowing the construction of gas plants.)(Adds information about the Nature methane study in the second-to-last paragraph.)(1) Bloomberg's analysis of the impact of new export facilities doesn’t include emissions from burning gas for energy, transporting it by pipeline or shipping it by sea. Carbon dioxide emissions per coal-fired power plant were calculated by dividing the CO2-equivalent output of all U.S. coal-fired power (1.19 billion tons) by the number of operating plants in 2018 (367). That equates to 3.25 million tons of CO2-equivalent emissions per coal facility. This is the same methodology used by the Environmental Protection Agency in its Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator.(2) Emissions intensity was calculated by dividing the CO2 equivalent emissions for fully operational terminals by 1.10231131 to convert short tons to metric tons, then dividing that by each facility’s liquefaction nameplate capacity. Emissions and capacity were taken from federal environmental filings.\--With assistance from Anastacia Dialynas and Brian Bartholomew.To contact the authors of this story: Catherine Traywick in Denver at email@example.comStephen Cunningham in Washington at firstname.lastname@example.orgNaureen Malik in New York at email@example.comDave Merrill in Washington at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Bob Ivry at email@example.com, David MarinoFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
China's Sinopec, expected to be the next major Chinese buyer of U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG), is planning to review terms of a potential $16 billion supply deal with Cheniere Energy Inc after a sharp drop in LNG prices, industry officials said. Sinopec, officially named China Petroleum & Chemical Corp, and Houston-based Cheniere had been expected to sign the 20-year deal once a trade truce was reached between Beijing and Washington.
The Insider Monkey team has completed processing the quarterly 13F filings for the September quarter submitted by the hedge funds and other money managers included in our extensive database. Most hedge fund investors experienced strong gains on the back of a strong market performance, which certainly propelled them to adjust their equity holdings so as […]
Trafigura Group, the global commodity trader, increased its annual liquefied natural gas (LNG) trading volumes by 27%, driven by trade flows and the start of new contracts, the company said on Wednesday. Volumes rose to 12.6 million metric tonnes equivalent this year, which included the start of shipments under the company's 15-year agreement to lift supply from Cheniere Energy as well as several other mid-term contracts, Trafigura said in its annual report. "With weak demand in Asia redirecting trade flows, the European market absorbed the bulk of our Atlantic cargoes, often in conjunction with our natural gas desk, while we continued to build our position in the Far East with regionally sourced LNG," the company said.
Asian spot prices for liquefied natural gas (LNG) dropped for a second consecutive week as supply flooded the market, overshadowing demand subdued by a winter that has been milder than average. The average LNG price for January delivery into northeast Asia is estimated to be about $5.50 per million British thermal units (mmBtu), down 10 cents from the previous week, several industry sources said. Angola LNG offered a cargo for delivery over late January to mid-February in a tender that closes next week.
* Cheniere, the biggest U.S. LNG exporter, said in a filing earlier this week that its proposed process would prioritize work on one tank, known as S-101, and allow that tank to return to service in the near term. * The U.S. Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) ordered Cheniere to shut two tanks at Sabine on Feb. 8, 2018, after plant workers on Jan. 22, 2018, discovered a 1- to 6-foot-long crack at one tank that leaked fuel into an outer layer.
Proposed projects to export liquefied natural gas (LNG) from North America face an uphill battle against Qatar, which announced plans to further ramp up production to hold onto its position as the world's leading LNG exporter. The United States is on track to overtake Qatar and Australia as the top LNG exporter by 2024, but now will only hold that title for a few years as Qatar announced this week it will boost production by 64% by 2027. Qatar's plans add another headwind for dozens of long-in-development projects already contending with the difficulty of finding customers due to the U.S.-China trade war and a glut of supply worldwide.
Asian and European LNG prices are falling through the floor as a result of mild winter weather and a new wave of supply from the US, Australia and Russia
Moody's Investors Service ("Moody's") has completed a periodic review of the ratings of Sabine Pass Liquefaction LLC and other ratings that are associated with the same analytical unit. The review was conducted through a portfolio review in which Moody's reassessed the appropriateness of the ratings in the context of the relevant principal methodology(ies), recent developments, and a comparison of the financial and operating profile to similarly rated peers. This publication does not announce a credit rating action and is not an indication of whether or not a credit rating action is likely in the near future.
Paulson & Co. disclosed on Nov. 18 an interest in the independent oil-and-gas explorer of 10,338,663 shares, less than half of what Paulson reported on Nov. 5 when it revealed a 9.5% stake. Since the prior disclosure, Paulson shed nearly 52% of its position with sales of 11,254,860 shares at prices ranging from $4.29 to $4.57 each on Nov. 14 and 15, leaving it with a 4.5% interest in Callon’s outstanding stock. Paulson previously stated that it would vote its shares against Callon’s proposed $1.2 billion merger with Carrizo Oil & Gas (CRZO) first announced in July.