Obtain the data you need to make the most informed decisions by accessing our extensive portfolio of information, analytics, and expertise. Sign in to the product or service center of your choice.
<span/>Prior to the
coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and oil price crash issues, the
story of the future supply of feedstock gas into some of Western <span/>Australia's LNG plants
was looking pretty firm. There was Barossa to backfill Darwin LNG,
Browse to backfill North West Shelf (NWS) LNG and Scarborough to
both backfill Pluto LNG train 1 and also underpin the development
of Pluto LNG train 2.
However, the ground is starting to move beneath our feet and
what we thought we knew is being challenged. Woodside has admitted
that their plans may need to change, with Browse economics
struggling to stack up in the current price environment and
emissions pressures only likely to increase the costs. Based on the
current development plans, we see the upstream breakeven gas price
for Browse sitting in the region of USD 5-6/MMBTU.
Image 1: Browse development and estimated economics
Assuming that the ultimate LNG product would be sold at a
(currently generous) 12.5% slope to Brent, with a USD 2/MMBTU
tolling fee (which is around the discussed value) to go through NWS
LNG and USD 0.6/MMBTU to get the LNG to the end market, then a
Brent price of USD 60-70/bbl would be required to support the
project economics.
If not Browse, then what?
We aren't saying that Browse won't happen and that it won't
still be an important part of the future supply story but, if we
play devil's advocate and assume that Browse won't be the first cab
off the rank, then this does ask the question: what will be next?
There are a number of options that could be looked at, we have
chosen to discuss the following four:
Scarborough: could be prioritised as backfill
for NWS LNG, with Pluto train 2 delayed/cancelled.
Clio-Acme: previously talked up as a backfill
option for NWS LNG.
Onshore Perth basin: deeper play is providing
new gas volumes.
Exploration: the 15 Tcf Ironbark prospect is
planned to be spudded in October 2020.
Each of these options is discussed in more detail below. It
should be noted that this is far from a comprehensive list and
there are many other discovered resources and prospects that could
be developed to provide backfill.
Scarborough
The Scarborough field is located approximately 375km
west-northwest of the Burrup Peninsula. Most of the Scarborough gas
field sits in WA-01-R retention lease, with some in the WA-62-R
retention lease and the participating interest in the Scarborough
field is Woodside (73.5% + operator) and BHP (26.5%).
Woodside's current development plan is based on the gas
supporting the development of a new second train at the Pluto LNG
plant, with some of the production also supporting any decline in
feedstock for train 1 and also, potentially, being sent through the
interconnector to NWS LNG.
If Pluto Train 2 was put on hold or cancelled, then Scarborough
gas could be diverted to NWS LNG. This would require little change
in the upstream development plan for the field, with our calculated
breakeven gas price being significantly lower than Browse.
Image 2: Scarborough development and estimated
economics
It should be noted that the discussed tolling fee for Pluto
Train 2 is around the USD 3/MMBTU mark and, if the gas was to be
routed through NWS LNG then further investment in the NWS LNG plant
may be required to handle the Scarborough gas that is very lean,
which would need to be recovered through a higher toll than the
discussed USD 2/MMBTU for Browse through NWS LNG.
Additionally, Woodside have publicly stated that they would like
to farm-down their interest in both the upstream asset and the
Pluto Train 2 development to ease their capital burden. With
uncertainty around the final destination of the gas, it will be a
challenge to value the assets, and any deal will therefore be
unlikely until this is resolved.
Clio-Acme
The Clio-Acme gas fields are located in WA-42-R retention lease
that is held by Chevron (100% + operator). The fields sit in waters
ranging from 875-960m deep. We do not have any information on the
CO2 content but there is a small amount of associated
condensate.
As recently as November 2018, positive news had been put out on
Clio-Acme, with the NWS Joint Venture signing preliminary
agreements with Chevron in respect to the potential processing of
Clio-Acme gas through the NWS LNG facilities. The outlined
development plan had been relatively simple, with subsea wells
being tied-back to the Pluto platform, with the gas getting from
Pluto LNG plant to the NWS LNG plant through the planned
interconnector.
When we look at the economics of this development then it stacks
up well. However, a 50km subsea tie-back may be a technical
challenge, with a semi-submersible or FPSO then required. This
would push up the breakeven price. We have assumed raw gas CO2
content of about 2%.
Image 3:Clio-Acme development and estimated
economics
The discussions for processing Clio-Acme gas through the NWS LNG
were reported to have broken down last year and, with Chevron
announcing its intention to sell its stake in NWS LNG, it seems
unlikely that their molecules will be prioritised as feedstock. The
future of Clio-Acme may lie as a backfill option for the Chevron
operated Wheatstone LNG plant although we do not expect a window
until the early 2030's. The window at Chevron's Gorgon LNG plant
would be even further away.
Onshore Perth basin:
The onshore Perth basin has seen a recent renaissance with a
deeper play that was started with the Waitsia field and has been
followed up with West Erregulla and Beharra Springs Deep and a
number of other prospects being similarly considered. These fields
sit about 300km North of Perth and about 1000km south of the Burrup
peninsula and the LNG plants. The gas is generally dry with CO2
content in the range of 5-10%.
The monetisation story for these discoveries has been around
them providing a lower cost source of gas to the domestic market.
There has been some talk about diverting the gas to the LNG plants
but the distance from the fields to the plants would make this
unlikely. Another option would be for LNG exporters to meet Western
Australia's domestic gas reservation policy through gas swaps, with
these onshore discoveries replacing gas supply from fields
currently dedicated to the LNG plants.
The development plan has typically been phased, with small
initial developments based on gas sales agreements. Larger phases
are then planned that will involve the drilling of a limited number
of new wells and the expansion of new processing facilities or the
installation of new facilities. The sales gas can easily be tied
into the Dampier Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline (DBNGP) and it would
benefit from lower transportation costs to Perth when compared to
the domestic gas plants at the LNG facilities.
Image 4:Waitsia Phase 2 development and estimated
economics
If the focus turns to keeping the LNG plants full before new
supply sources come onstream, then a window could be opening sooner
than expected. A lot may depend on how the domestic market
obligations are handled, particularly given that the NWS LNG
plant's domestic obligation ended in 2020.
Exploration: Ironbark
The Ironbark prospect is located about 50km outboard from the
North Rankin Complex, with the majority of the prospect sitting
across the WA-355-P and WA-409-P exploration permits. These are
both operated by BP with Beach, Cue and NZOG having participating
interests in both permits.
The prospect has been reported to have a pre-drill recoverable
gas resource estimate of 15 Tcf, which should certainly result in
positive economics. When we run some analysis looking at the
minimum economic field size for the prospect, it looks encouraging.
A development based on a subsea tie-back to one of the existing
platforms (i.e. North Rankin, Pluto or Wheatstone) may be possible,
or a new pipeline to shore may be required. For now, our model
assumes dry gas with a moderate CO2 content of 2% with a
development plan based on a semi-submersible being installed on the
field and an export pipeline to the North Rankin Complex.
Image 5: Potential Ironbark development and estimated
economics
As with a lot of other prospects and discoveries on the North
West Shelf, the challenge in monetising the molecules will be in
finding a route to market. In the above chart, the Minimum Economic
Field Size (MEFS) for a USD 4/MMBTU gas price is about 2Tcf and for
a USD 3/MMBTU gas price is about 4Tcf.
However, with the potential window opening at NWS LNG, the
prospect has progressed and, in mid-July NOPSEMA approved the
Environmental Plan (EP) for the Ironbark 1 exploration well and it
is understood that the plan is to spud the well in October 2020,
dependent on the rig's prior commitments.
Looking for new answers to old questions
The balls are very much all in the air again and there are many
layers of complication to work through before we will see where
they all fall. The most likely scenario, if prices do not recover,
would be that Browse gets indefinitely delayed and Scarborough will
be brought in to backfill NWS LNG, with Pluto Train 2 cancelled.
However, there is no lack of alternative potential gas that could
serve as backfill.
Image 6: Comparative upstream metrics
However, with the JV dynamics as they are, we could see
mismatched objectives that see disagreements over the best path
forward resulting in no new projects being prioritised and the NWS
LNG plant being under-utilised, in which case no-one wins.
Adding to the mix is the proposed sale of Chevron's NWS LNG
stake. Putting a value on this is going to be very challenging
given the lack of clarity on both when and where backfill gas will
come from and what the associated tolling fee will be.
These are not the kind of risks and uncertainties that would
attract an infrastructure investor. Therefore, the most likely
destination is one of the existing JV partners. Woodside appear to
be everyone's current favourites, and for good reason. A larger
stake would help them push the case for their molecules, and on a
tolling basis that works for them. However, if BP are confident
about Ironbark then this could see them take a keen interest in the
sales process to prevent Ironbark becoming another stranded gas
discovery on the North West Shelf. The remaining partners seem less
likely but CNOOC, who currently have a stake in the upstream
licences but not any of the infrastructure, could be keen. However,
there are significant doubts around the Australian government's
willingness to let them own a stake in such a key piece of
infrastructure.
Let the games begin!
Robert Chambers is a Director in the Upstream asset
valuation team at IHS Markit.