Australia's Emerging CBM LNG Industry A look at Queensland's CBM LNG proposals, characteristics and the challenges facing the industry including land access, water management and taxation.
| レポートID | 1006426 |
|---|---|
| 作成日 | 2011-01-20 01:00:00 +0900 |
| 更新日 | 2018-02-16 10:50:18 +0900 |
| 公開フラグ | 1 |
| 媒体 | 石油・天然ガスレビュー 2 |
| 分野 | 探鉱開発非在来型 |
| 著者 | |
| 著者直接入力 | Lainie Kelly |
| 年度 | 2011 |
| Vol | 45 |
| No | 1 |
| ページ数 | |
| 抽出データ | アナリシスJOGMEC Sydney Office, Oil and Gas Department, ResearcherLainie KellyAustralia's Emerging CBM LNG IndustryA look at Queensland's CBM LNG proposals, characteristics and the challenges facing the industry including land access, water management and taxation.はじめに 2007年7月以来、豪州クイーンズランド州では8件のLNGプロジェクトが提案された。これら案件は世界で初めて炭層メタンガス（コールベットメタン：CBM）をガスソースとするLNGプロジェクトである。 液化基地サイトは、7プロジェクトがグラッドストン市、残りの一つはクイーンズランド州北部のAbbot Pointを想定している。4プロジェクトが大規模案件であり、これらはSantos/Petronas/Total/KOGAS主導のグラッドストンLNG（GLNG）、BGグループ主導のクイーンズランドカーテイスLNG（QCLNG）、Origin Energy/ConocoPhillips主導のオーストラリアパシフィックLNG（APLNG）、そしてShell/PetroChina社の共同LNGプロジェクトである。このなかでQCLNGが最も先行しており、既に2010年10月末にFID（最終投資決定）を行った。GLNGとAPLNGがこれに続き、2011年のFIDを計画している。Shell/PetroChinaのプロジェクトは2012～2013年のFIDを目指している。小規模の4プロジェクトはまだガス供給が定まらないなど、計画の初期段階にある。 CBMを輸出用LNGプロジェクトに用いるのは初めての挑戦である。事業者は、土地所有者に対する掘削現場への立ち入り許可、CBM生産に伴う大量の塩水処理、鉱物資源利用税（MRRT）の創設に伴う石油資源利用税（PRRT）の陸上ガスプロジェクト適用への対処など、いくつかの課題に対処しつつプロジェクトを進めている。また今後5～6年間の同時期に西豪州沖合ガス田開発によるLNGプロジェクトが立ち上がってくることから、これら沖合LNGとの競合関係も課題となる。更にすべての豪州LNGプロジェクトは、労働者問題（雇用経費の拡大、技能技術者不足）や資機材の高騰、需給緩和下でのLNGマーケティング開拓など、厳しい事業環境がある。 初のCBM-LNGプロジェクトはこのような厳しい条件下にあり、事業者がいかにこの厳しい環境を認識して事業に取り組むかが成功のカギとなろう。 このレポートによって、世界で初めてとなるCBM-LNGプロジェクトの現況を理解していただければ幸いです。JOGMECシドニー事務所 次長 丸山 裕章1. Major Queensland CBM LNG Project Proposals（1） Queensland Curtis LNG （QCLNG） A final investment decision for the Queensland Curtis LNG project was announced on 31 October 2010, with first LNG exports planned for 2014. QCLNG is operated by Queensland Gas Company （QGC）, BG Group's Australian business. China National Offshore Oil Corporation （CNOOC） and Tokyo Gas both have QCLNG equity and LNG agreements. The project 43石油・天然ガスレビューncludes a two-train 8.5 million tonnes per annum （mtpa） LNG facility at North China Bay on Curtis Island, in the port of Gladstone. The initial LNG train, associated gas fields and pipeline infrastructure will cost approximately $US15 billion. The LNG plant will have production capacity up to 12 mtpa from three each with 4 mtpa capacity LNG trains. Production from Source: Queensland Gas Company HPFig1QCLNG Project OverviewアナリシスTrain 2 is planned 6-12 months after Train 1. The gas will be transported from the Surat Basin through a 540 km underground pipeline network, which includes a 340 km export trunk line, to the LNG facility on Curtis Island. The LNG facility will be supplied with the gas from areas in the Walloon Fairway of the Surat Basin. As of October 2010, BG Group has gross discovered CBM reserves and resources of 17.3 trillion cubic feet （tcf） and proved and probable 2P reserves estimated at 7 tcf. The two-train LNG facility will require about 1,442 terajoules per day （TJ/d）※1 or 526 petajoules per annum （PJ/pa）※2 of CBM to be transported by pipeline. More than 1,800 wells are expected to be drilled by the end of 2014. Over the 20 year life of the two-train project more than 6,000 gas production wells will be drilled. The Queensland state government gave environmental approval to the project in June 2010. Federal government approval was delayed in July but conditional approval was granted on 22 October 2010 allowing BG Group to make a final investment decision a week later.※1：1 million cubic feet = 1.06 Terajoules※2：1 billion cubic feet = 1.06 Petajoules①Participants In February 2008, QGC and BG Group announced a proposal to develop a LNG facility in Queensland using CBM from QGC's Surat Basin acreage. In October 2008, BG Group launched takeover bid for QGC, and in Table1QCLNG Equity & LNG AgreementsBuyerEquityArrangement/Datemtpa＊1/DurationRemarksChubu ElectricNo equityHOA＊2/October 2010120 cargoes/20 years120 cargoes or 8.4 million tonnes over 20 years.CNOOCTokyo Gas5% equity tenements（$US270m）,10% equity Train 11.25% equity tenements,2.5% equity Train 2SPA＊3/March 20103.6/20 years HOA/March 20101.2/20 years Quintero LNG ChileNo equitySPA/June 20071.7/21 yearsCustomers in SingaporeNo equityApril 2008Up to 3/20 yearsBG and CNOOC will participate in a consortium to construct two LNG ships in China.＊1：mtpa- million tonnes per annum＊2：HOA-Heads of Agreement＊3：SPA-Sales and Purchase AgreementSource: BG Group HP2011.1 Vol.45 No.144ustralia's Emerging CBM LNG IndustryMarch 2009 BG Group finalised the takeover of QGC. QCLNG is operated by BG Group and both CNOOC and Tokyo Gas have QCLNG equity and LNG agreements. BG Group has up to 9.5 mtpa of LNG agreements to deliver cargoes from the QCLNG project and BG Group's global LNG portfolio. This does not take into account the most recent agreement with Chubu Electric for the long-term supply of LNG from BG Group's global LNG portfolio, including LNG from QCLNG announced in October 2010. Under the HOA, Chubu will purchase up to 120 cargoes （8.4 million tonnes） of LNG over 20 years from 2014.② Gas Supply In February 2010, Australia Pacific LNG, which is held equally by Origin Energy and ConocoPhillips agreed to sell about 190 PJ/pa of gas over an initial ramp up （gradual increase of gas production） period of approximately two years to QGC. Annual volumes sold to QGC are expected to reduce to about 25 PJ over the balance of the initial 20 year contract. The CBM will come from the southeast Queensland tenements, ATP 648P and ATP 620P, jointly owned by QGC and APLNG.③Remarks BG Group estimates QCLNG will create 5,000 jobs during peak construction and about 1,000 jobs during operation. As a result of the project Queensland's gross state product is expected to increase from 2010 to 2021 by up to $32 billion or about $2.6 billion per annum. The project is in the lead as the first project to make a final investment decision and its position is further strengthened by its LNG agreements. BG Group is a global natural gas company that brings credibility and experience to the CBM LNG industry.＊1（2） Gladstone LNG （GLNG） The Gladstone LNG project has completed front-end engineering and design （FEED） and is on track to make a final investment decision in 2011, with first production in 2015. Santos is the operator of the project along with partners Petronas, Total and Korea Gas Corporation（KOGAS）. In July 2007, Santos was 45石油・天然ガスレビューthe first project proponent to announce the development of a LNG project in Queensland using CBM as feedstock. The GLNG project consists of an initial two-train LNG facility located on Curtis Island in the port of Gladstone, with production of 7.8 mtpa of LNG. Each train will produce 3.9 mtpa, with production of more than 10 mtpa expected from three LNG trains. The project is estimated to cost $US16 billion from the time of a final investment decision until the end of 2015, when Train 2 is expected to be ready for start-up. The gas from fields between Roma and Emerald in Queensland's Bowen and Surat Basins will be transported to the LNG facility on Curtis Island via a 435 km gas pipeline. One LNG train will require 600 TJ/d of gas and two trains 1,200 TJ/d of gas. An annual gas supply of about 170-220 PJ/pa will be required for Train 1. The CBM fields are expected to produce over a period of 25 years about 5,300 PJ of CBM for Train 1 of the LNG facility. As of December 2010, the GLNG CBM proven and probable 2P reserves Source: GLNG HPFig2Santos and GLNG CBM AcreageAナリシスare 5005 PJ plus 750 PJ from Santos' Eastern Australia Portfolio. GLNG's first 3.9 mtpa train will require about 2,650 wells to be drilled over the life of the project. In September 2010, Santos also agreed to give the GLNG joint venture 100 per cent owned Queensland CBM leases that increased reserves for the project. In May 2010, the GLNG project received conditional environmental approval from the Queensland state government. After delaying a decision in July the Federal Government granted conditional environmental approval on 22 October 2010.＊2① Participants In December 2010, significant changes to the GLNG partner interests were announced including the highly anticipated sale of a 15 per cent interest to KOGAS for $665 million. Santos will sell a 7.5 per cent interest in GLNG to KOGAS and another 7.5 per cent to Total. Petronas will also sell a 7.5 per cent interest in GLNG to KOGAS. Under the completion of the sale the GLNG partners will be Santos operator with 30 per cent, Petronas 27.5 per cent, Total 27.5 per cent and KOGAS 15 per cent.＊3②Remarks GLNG is expected to create 5,000 jobs during construction and more than 1,000 jobs during operation. Santos estimates the project will add on average $4.1 billion each year from 2009 to 2033 to Queensland's real gross state product. The final federal government environmental approval was granted on 22 October 2010. The project was expected to make a final investment decision by the end of 2010 but has been delayed until January 2011, with first production expected in 2015.Petronas, Total and now KOGAS' participation and LNG agreements have strengthened the project.（3） Australia Pacific LNG （APLNG） Australia Pacific LNG is a 50:50 joint venture between Origin Energy and ConocoPhillips to develop Origin's CBM fields by building a LNG facility at Laird Point on Curtis Island, Gladstone. The project is in the FEED phase. A final investment decision targeted for the end of 2010 has been delayed until 2011, with first production expected in 2015. The initial project involves a two-train 9 mtpa LNG facility, but there are plans to expand up to 18 mtpa of LNG from four trains. Production from Train 2 is scheduled 12 months after production from the first train. The gas will be transported by one or more gas transmission pipelines approximately 450 km in length from the gas fields to Gladstone and the LNG facility on Curtis Island. The tenements that APLNG will develop are located in the Bowen and Surat Basins. As of June 2010, APLNG has 10,143 PJ of proven and probable 2P reserves. Each 4.5 mtpa LNG train will require a gas supply of about 685 TJ/d or 250 PJ/pa. The project will drill about 350 to 500 wells per year and could increase to 600 wells per year. Over the 30 year life of the project approximately 10,000 wells will be drilled. Table2GLNG Equity & LNG AgreementsBuyerEquityArrangement/Datemtpa/DurationRemarksPetronas＊127.5% SPA/Dec 20103.5/ 20 years（1.8 Train 1, 1.7 Train 2）In May 2008 Santos sold 40% to Petronas for $US2.008bn. Total27.5% （SPA/Sep 2010 cancelled）（1.5 mtpa cancelled in Dec 2010）In Sep 2010 Santos sold 15% for $650m, Petronas sold 5% for an estimated $217m to Total. In Dec 2010, sale of 7.5% from Santos to Total announced.KOGAS15% SPA/Dec 20103.5/ 20 years（1.7 Train 1, 1.8 Train 2）In December 2010, sale of 7.5% from Santos and 7.5% from Petronas to KOGAS announced. ＊1： As part of related deals with GLNG joint venture partner Petronas, Santos will forfeit a $US500 million payment Petronas was to make when a final investment decision on the second train was made.Source： Santos HP and GLNG HP2011.1 Vol.45 No.146ustralia's Emerging CBM LNG IndustrySource：Origin Energy HPFig3Origin Energy and APLNG CBM Acreageapproved. Origin will be responsible for the construction and management of APLNG's CBM-related activities including pipeline construction, with ConocoPhillips responsible for the construction and management of the LNG facility.② Gas Supply In February 2010, APLNG agreed to sell about 190 PJ/pa of gas over an initial ramp up period for around two years to BG Group's Queensland Gas Company. Annual volumes sold to QGC are expected to be reduced to about 25 PJ/pa over the balance of the initial 20 year contract. The CBM will come from the southeast Queensland tenements, ATP 648P and ATP 620P, jointly owned by QGC and APLNG. APLNG received Queensland Government approval in November 2010, even though 17 wells were shutdown in October due to traces of banned chemicals BTEX （benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes） being found in eight exploration wells at the project. Federal government environmental approval has been delayed from December 2010 until February 2011. APLNG cannot proceed to a final investment until the environmental approval process is complete.① Participants Australia Pacific LNG Limited is the Origin Energy and ConocoPhillips 50:50 joint venture which was previously Origin Energy CSG Limited, the 100 per cent owned subsidiary of Origin. In September 2008, ConocoPhillips became a 50 per cent partner in the joint development of a CBM LNG project using Origin's CBM reserves in Queensland and ConocoPhillips LNG technology. ConocoPhillips would invest up to $US8 billion for a 50 per cent stake in the joint venture and pay Origin $US5 billion up front, an additional contribution of $US1.15 billion in costs to 2010 to carry Origin's share of costs to the final investment decision for an initial two train project, and four additional payments of $US500 million when each of the four trains are ③Remarks The APLNG project will invest $35 billion in Queensland through to 2020. During peak construction the project will employ a workforce of up to 5,000 and 1,000 during operation. A final investment decision for Train 1 is expected in 2011, with first LNG in 2015. The project has the largest reserves base and is catching up to the other projects in terms of approvals. However, the project schedule could be pushed back if there are delays in securing LNG customers.＊4（4） Shell/PetroChina In February 2009, Shell announced its intention to develop a CBM LNG project on Curtis Island in the port of Gladstone. PetroChina became Shell's 50 per cent joint venture partner in the development in March 2010.The initial development includes a two-train 7-8 mtpa LNG facility with expansion up to 16 mtpa of LNG from four trains each with a 3-4 mtpa capacity. A final investment decision is expected in 2012-13,with potential production in 2015-17. A gas pipeline from Gladstone City Gate to Curtis Island will supply gas from CBM reserves in the Surat and Bowen Basins to the LNG facility. The first LNG train will use approximately 200 PJ/pa as feedgas. A 47石油・天然ガスレビューAナリシスtotal of up to 4,000 PJ would be required for Train 1 in the first 20 years of operation.＊5 As of November 2010, Shell has approximately 5,265 PJ of proven and probable 2P reserves.＊6 The project is scheduled to enter FEED in 2011. Shell is preparing the Environmental Impact Statement （EIS）, but it has not been lodged as of November 2010. Shell has not yet signed any LNG agreements for the project, but the company is confident about finding a market through its joint venture partner PetroChina.①Participants Shell acquired a 30 per cent stake in Arrow Energy's CBM acreage in Queensland as well as a 10 per cent stake in its international business, having agreed to pay $776 million in June 2008. In August 2010, Shell and PetroChina completed a $3.5 billion joint takeover of Arrow. CS CSG Australia, a 50:50 joint venture company Table3Major CBM LNG Project Proposals in QueenslandProjectQueensland Curtis LNGGladstone LNGAustralia Pacific LNGShell/PetroChinaParticipantsBG Group 93.75%CNOOC 5%Tokyo Gas 1.25%Santos 30%Petronas 27.5%Total 27.5%KOGAS 15%Origin Energy 50% ConocoPhillips 50%Shell 50%PetroChina 50%Date AnnouncedFebruary 2008July 2007September 2008 June 2008LNG BuyerCNOOC 3.6 mtpaTokyo Gas 1.2 mtpaBG Portfolio up to 4.7 mtpaChubu Electric 120 cargoes （8.4 million tonnes total）Petronas 3.5 mtpaKOGAS 3.5 mtpaNoneNone（potential with PetroChina）LNG SiteGladstone, Curtis IslandGladstone, Curtis IslandGladstone, Curtis IslandGladstone, Curtis IslandCapacity mtpa8.5 mtpa（up to 12）3.9-10 mtpa9 mtpa（up to 18） 4-16 mtpaLNG trains（train capacity mtpa）Initial 2 trains up to 4 trains（4 mtpa）Initial 2 trains up to 3 trains(3.9 mtpa)Initial 2 trains up to 4 trains（4.5 mtpa）Initial 2 trains up to 4 trains（3-4 mtpa）Optimized CascadeOptimized CascadeOptimized CascadeSurat BasinSurat & Bowen BasinsSurat & Bowen BasinsBowen & Surat Basins7,423 PJ＊（7tcf）5,755 PJ (5.5tcf)10,143 PJ（9.6tcf）5,265 PJ（5tcf）20 years20 years30 years20 years260 PJ/pa（1 train x 4 mtpa）170-220 PJ/pa(1 train x 3.9 mtpa)250 PJ/pa（1 train x 4.5mtpa）200 PJ/pa（1 train x 3-4 mtpa）4,000-5,0003,000-4,0004,000-5,0002,500-3,0006,000（life of 2 train project）2,650 (1 train project)10,000（life of project）Liquefaction Technology CBM Supply CBM ReservesProject Life Gas SupplyLabour Peak ConstructionWellsCostFEEDFID$US15bnFEED completeOctober 2010$US16bnFEED completeJanuary 20112015$35bnIn FEED201120152012-132015-17FID expected in January 2011Federal environmental approval expected in February 2011Preparing Environmental Impact StatementFirst Production2014StatusFID made in October 2010＊：PJ Petajoules （1 billion cubic feet of gas = 1.06 PJ）Source: Company HP, Energy Skills Queensland, EnergyQuest 2011.1 Vol.45 No.148ustralia's Emerging CBM LNG Industryowned by Shell and PetroChina, will own Arrow's Queensland CBM assets and domestic power business. The joint venture company would also own Shell's Queensland CBM assets and its interests in the LNG project on Curtis Island, Gladstone.② Remarks Shell is preparing the EIS for the project and plans to enter FEED in 2011. Shell and PetroChina's CBM LNG project is further behind the other major projects with a final investment decision expected in 2012-13,with potential production in 2015-17.FID doneFID not yetSource: JOGMECFig4Curtis Island Major Project LNG Sites2. Smaller Queensland CBM LNG Proposals（1） Fisherman's Landing Liquefied Natural Gas Limited's Fisherman's Landing LNG project also known as Gladstone LNG involves an initial 1.5 mtpa train increasing to 3-4 mtpa production capacity from two trains. The LNG facility is located at Fisherman's Landing on the mainland, Gladstone. The total estimated capital cost for Train 1 is $US720 million and for 3.5 mtpa is $US1.105 billion. The expected life of the project is 25 years. LNG Ltd has available buyers and funding. The company has executed an agreement to lease Fisherman's Landing. The site has existing Source: Liquefied Natural Gas Limited WebsiteFig5LNG Ltd Illustration of Fisherman's Landing LNG Site49石油・天然ガスレビューinfrastructure and can accommodate 4 trains with a total capacity of 8 mtpa. LNG Ltd has environmental approvals for two 1.5 mtpa LNG trains. LNG Ltd only needs a new gas supply for the project.*7①Participants Arrow Energy had a Memorandum of Understanding （MOU） with LNG Ltd for the supply of gas to the Fisherman's Landing project. However, LNG Ltd was forced to look for a new gas supply when the Shell and PetroChina takeover bid was accepted by Arrow and completed in August 2010. In March 2010, construction and earth works on the Fisherman's Landing LNG site were put on hold.②Gas Supply Metgasco has entered into a MOU with LNG Ltd to examine the feasibility of gas supply, transportation, liquefaction and sale of gas from Metgasco's CBM reserves and conventional resources in the Clarence Moreton Basin, New South Wales, to LNG Ltd's Fisherman's Landing project at Gladstone in Queensland. Metgasco has also entered into an MOU with Flex LNG for an alternative assessment to develop its gas reserves in NSW.Aナリシス③ Remarks LNG Ltd is seeking gas and LNG agreements for its Fisherman's Landing project. The project will not progress until a new gas supply is found.（2）Sun LNG In December 2007, Sojitz Corporation and Sunshine Gas Ltd announced a Heads of Agreement （HOA） for the joint development of a small LNG project. The Sun LNG project would source gas from Sunshine's CBM acreage at Lacerta in the Surat Basin. The project proposed to develop a LNG facility at Fisherman's Landing, Gladstone with an initial LNG production capacity of 0.5 mtpa that would increase to 1.0 mtpa. It would include a 5km lateral gas pipeline from the Gladstone City Gas Gate of the Queensland Gas Pipeline to the LNG facility.＊8 An EIS, under the Environmental Protection Act 1994, was lodged, but Sojitz requested that it is not released for public comment.①Participants Sunshine would operate the upstream phase with an 80 per cent interest and Sojitz would hold 20 per cent. The LNG facility would be constructed by Sojitz with a 70 per cent interest and Sunshine would hold the remaining 30 per cent interest. LNG Japan would be a strategic partner and would offtake and market the LNG. However, Sojitz's Sun LNG project lost its partner and gas supply after QGC made a takeover over bid for Sunshine Gas in August 2008 that was finalised at the end of 2008.②Remarks The project initially targeted a final investment decision for December 2008, with first LNG scheduled for the first quarter of 2012. Unfortunately, the project stalled after the takeover of Sunshine Gas by QGC in the second half of 2008. Sojitz needs to find a new partner that can supply gas to the project. According to Sojitz it was ready to move into FEED studies as soon as a new partner could be found..＊9（3） Southern Cross LNG In May 2008, Queensland Premier Anna Bligh announced that Impel was planning to build a LNG plant in Gladstone, with scheduled production in 2013. However, the Impel proposal, Southern Cross LNG, is still in the early stages of planning. Out of the eight proposals Impel is the only one that proposes to build an open-access LNG facility on Curtis Island, Gladstone. The initial LNG train capacity would be 0.7-1.7 mtpa. The site has been scoped for expansion to three LNG trains. Additionally, there are plans for an open-access 400 km pipeline to Gladstone. Production from Train 1 is scheduled for 2013, but Impel has not yet submitted an Initial Advice Statement （IAS）. Impel is a subsidiary of Galveston LNG, an experienced owner of Table4Smaller CBM LNG Project Proposals in QueenslandFisherman's LandingSun LNGSouthern Cross LNGAbbot Point LNGSmaller CBM LNG ProjectCurrent ParticipantsLiquefied Natural Gas LimitedSojitz CorporationImpelDate AnnouncedMay 2007December 2007May 2008 Energy World Corporation2008LNG SiteFisherman's Landing, GladstoneFisherman's Landing GladstoneCurtis Island,GladstoneAbbot Point.Northern Queensland Capacity mtpa1.5-3.0 mtpa0.5-1.0 mtpa0.7-1.7 mtpa1.0-2.0 mtpaStatusSource: Company HPLNG Ltd in talks for gas supply. MOU with Metgasco.Need new gas supply to enter FEED Studies.Initial Advice Statement not yet submitted.Feasibility study.2011.1 Vol.45 No.150ustralia's Emerging CBM LNG Industrythe Kitimat regasification facility in British Columbia, Canada.＊10（4） Abbot Point LNG Energy World Corporation proposes to build a LNG facility at Abbot Point in northern Queensland. The LNG facility would consist of an initial 0.5 mtpa modular LNG train, increasing to 2 mtpa with four modular LNG trains. The project would include LNG storage tank, and export facilities. Energy World would develop its tenures in the Cooper Basin near Eromanga and construct a pipeline to link the gas fields to Abbot Point. At this stage, the company is conducting a feasibility study. Production from the LNG facility is planned to commence by the end of 2012.＊11Source: JOGMECFig6Queensland LNG Sites3. Characteristics of the CBM LNG Industry（1） Coal Bed Methane （CBM） CBM, or coal seam gas （CSG） as it is more commonly known in Queensland is a natural gas located in coal seams. The coal seams are usually saturated with water and the pressure of water keeps the gas in Source: APLNG HPFig7CBM Extraction51石油・天然ガスレビューfractures or ‘cleats' of coal seams. The CBM typically contains 98 per cent methane with small amounts of nitrogen and carbon dioxide. CBM is extracted by drilling wells into the coal seams which causes the water to flow to the surface releasing the gas from the coal. CBM can be used for the same purposes and applications as conventional natural gas once produced. A characteristic of CBM is that it is low in carbon dioxide in comparison with most natural gas used in conventional LNG projects.（2） Lean Gas CBM has not previously been used as feedstock for LNG production and differs from conventional LNG. LNG produced using CBM, which is known as a lean gas has a lower heating value. LNG is characterised on the basis of energy content or heating value. The Kenai LNG facility in Alaska which produces lean LNG has supplied Tokyo Gas/TEPCO since 1969. Tokyo Gas compensates for the low heating value by spiking with liquefied petroleum gas （LPG）. Tokyo Gas has experience with lean LNG and it is encouraging that the company has signed a Heads of Agreement （HOA） Aナリシスfor supply of similar LNG from the QCLNG project. However, CBM LNG contracts will most likely need to factor in the low heating value and added cost of LPG. Kenai was the first LNG facility established with the ConocoPhillips Optimized Cascade Process and the company has selected the process for its APLNG project. Furthermore, the process has been selected by the GLNG and QCLNG projects. A strong foundation is being laid for the emerging CBM LNG industry with participation of international companies and experienced LNG operators using proven ConocoPhillips technology. （4） Why Gladstone, Queensland? Seven of the CBM LNG proposals have chosen the site of Gladstone in Queensland for their respective LNG facilities as it is a convenient export port for LNG and close to existing infrastructure with inland areas already being used for industrial activities. Besides, Queensland is where the majority of Australia's CBM reserves are located the Bowen Basin has 6,069 PJ and the Surat Basin has 16,969 PJ. In December 2009, Australia's proven and probable 2P reserves of CBM were 26,132 PJ. Queensland has 23,038 PJ of the 2P reserves and New South Wales holds the remaining 3,094 PJ.Source: Australian Mine Atlas 2010, Geoscience AustraliaFig9Bowen & Surat Basin CBM 2P Reserves as at December 2009CBM 2P Reserves in PJ5,265*QCLNG7,423APLNG10,143GLNG5,755（3） Ramp Up Gas Unlike conventional LNG projects, CBM LNG projects must manage ramp up gas over a period of around two years. CBM wells require a ramp up and dewatering period （removal of CBM water） in order to reach a stable production rate. It is expected that the ramp up gas produced during this time will be sold to the domestic market. Santos and Origin Energy have the advantage of an existing domestic gas portfolio. Additionally, the GLNG project has plans to store excess gas in underground reservoirs. APLNG already has an agreement to sell about 190 PJ/pa of gas over the initial ramp up period of approximately two years to QGC.DewateringStageStable ProductionStageDeclineStageGASWATERTIMEPRODUCTION RATESource: Department of Environment and Resource ManagementFig8CBM Dewatering & Ramp Up＊Shell/PetroChinaSource: Company HP, EnergyQuestFig10Major Project CBM 2P Reserves in PJ2011.1 Vol.45 No.152ustralia's Emerging CBM LNG Industry In 2009, Australia produced 195 PJ of CBM and about 97 per cent came from Queensland. Queensland produced 189 PJ from the Bowen Basin （117 PJ） and Surat Basin （72 PJ）. The 5.8 PJ of CBM produced in New South Wales came from the Sydney Basin （5.6 PJ） and Gunnedah Basin （0.2 PJ）.＊12 APLNG has the largest reserves base of the four major CBM LNG projects, followed by QCLNG, GLNG and lastly Shell/PetroChina.（5） Possible Collaboration/Consolidation? It was inevitable with all the CBM LNG proposals in Gladstone there would be talk about collaboration and possible consolidation of projects. Collaboration will be necessary between the LNG proponents during the establishment of the LNG facilities and associated infrastructure especially on Curtis Island. Common-user infrastructure （e.g. material offloading facilities, port facilities and infrastructure corridors） will be supported and encouraged by the Queensland Government as it would minimise the environmental impact of several LNG projects. Shipping access for the proposed LNG projects requires dredging for berth and channel arrangements as well as material offloading facilities. The LNG proponents will need to coordinate cross-harbour activities as all the materials and labour will have to be transferred by watercraft to Curtis Island. However, the government has also acknowledged that shared facilities are not always possible.＊13 Even though the LNG project pipeline routes are in close proximity and for the last 40 kilometres of the pipeline route, all pipelines follow the Callide Infrastructure Corridor there is no consolidation on construction of pipelines. The conflicting commercial interests of the project proponents have prevented any consolidation other than the coordination of construction of the separate project pipelines. Both the BG Group QCLNG project and the Santos-led GLNG project have separate federal government environmental approvals for pipelines from their own CBM fields to their own LNG plants. It would be more economical and efficient to collaborate with pipeline development especially from the mainland to Curtis Island but so far the projects are separate. Australia has a history of complex webs of pipelines known as "spaghetti junction" in oil and gas production regions such as offshore northwest Australia. During BG Group's 2010 third quarter results webcast chief executive officer Frank Chapman said the company wasn't working on any large-scale project consolidation as they have the customers and resources. At the Melbourne Mining Club in February 2010, Santos chief executive David Knox said the opportunity for consolidation was looking increasingly unlikely and difficult. So far there has been no major consolidation of projects but cooperation during construction of infrastructure is expected. Consolidation may be possible with gas supply for future LNG train expansions.4. Challenges Facing the CBM LNG Industry（1） Land Access Australia's conventional LNG projects such as the North West Shelf are supplied by gas from offshore fields whereas Queensland's CBM LNG projects will be supplied by onshore gas fields that require land access to drill wells. The rapid growth in exploration and development of CBM to support the emerging LNG industry in Queensland has led to increasing concerns from landholders about land access. The Queensland Government introduced new laws to more clearly define landholder rights and resource company obligations related to land access and compensation. The new laws for petroleum, gas, greenhouse gas and geothermal came into effect in October 2010 and for minerals and coal will be in place by the end of 2010. The new laws enable landholders to be informed about activities being undertaken, voice their concerns and opinions and receive compensation. As long as the 53石油・天然ガスレビューAナリシスresource company has consulted with the landholders and has adequate compensation agreements in place they can more easily access the land to carry out activities. Additionally the Queensland Government will introduce new legislation in 2011 to protect certain agricultural areas from being developed. It is understandable that landholders are concerned about the loss of good quality agricultural land with thousands of wells planned to be drilled on their land. The projects will spread over large areas as the distance between production wells is usually 500 metres to 1.5 kilometres apart. The QCLNG project will drill 6,000 wells for its two-train 8.5 mtpa LNG facility and 2,650 wells will be drilled for GLNG's first 3.9 mtpa LNG train. It is necessary for the agricultural and resources sectors to co-exist and the challenge is balancing the interests of both parties.（2） Impact on Groundwater CBM extraction is expected to have an impact on Queensland's groundwater levels. Most of the CBM development is in the area of the Great Artesian Basin, a significant groundwater supply for the state. The Great Artesian Basin has approximately 2,700 artesian bores and 15,000 sub-artesian bores which provide water for stock, domestic, urban, industrial and agricultural use in Queensland.＊14 The removal of CBM water during the extraction of CBM creates a reduction in groundwater pressure. It was reported in the Gladstone LNG Environmental Impact Statement that the water produced from the coal seam for the project could lead to changes in groundwater pressure and lower the water table from 3 metres up to 15 metres in certain areas.＊15 When the federal government granted environmental approval to the GLNG and QCLNG projects it imposed over 300 conditions to each project. The strict conditions include planning and monitoring to protect groundwater resources; management plans for aquifers, groundwater and surface water; ensuring reinjected water is of suitable quality; rehabilitating areas of land; and cooperating with other coal bed methane companies and the Queensland Water Commission for the ongoing assessment of the impacts on groundwater activity.（3） Water Management The CBM water produced during CBM extraction has a high saline content. The salinity of CBM water is usually measured as the concentration of total dissolved solids （TDS） ranging from 200 to more than 10,000 milligrams per litre. Good quality drinking water has a TDS of less than 500 milligrams per litre compared to seawater which is between 36,000 and 38,000 milligrams per litre. Most of the CBM water produced requires treatment such as reverse osmosis before beneficial use. The CBM producers are responsible for treating and disposing of CBM water which has Source: JOGMEC PhotoSource: JOGMEC PhotoFig11Arrow Energy WellFig12Arrow Energy Drill Site2011.1 Vol.45 No.154ustralia's Emerging CBM LNG Industrybecome more challenging with prohibition of evaporation ponds. The government's Queensland Coal Seam Gas Water Management Policy released in October 2008 stated the discontinuation of the use of evaporation ponds as a primary means to dispose of CBM water and the remediation of existing evaporation ponds is to occur by 1 October 2011. Amendments to the Environment Protection Act in 2010 prohibit the construction of CBM evaporation ponds, as of 5 July 2010. Under some circumstances evaporation ponds may be considered, but are limited to the activity of exploring for petroleum or gas. It is still acceptable to use evaporation ponds for the disposal of brine resulting from CBM water treatment processes. The CBM water and gas is separated at the wellhead and then transferred through a water gathering system for treatment and storage. The field compression stations （FCS） and central processing plants （CPP） located within the gas fields have water storage and processing facilities. The FCS located near the CBM well will compress and dehydrate the gas which will then be piped to the larger CPP that will further compress the gas. The gas is then transported from the gas field to the LNG plant. A FCS will require a storage pond of 200-300 megalitres （ML） and a CPP a storage pond of 20-30 ML. The annual peak water production could be between 100-280 gigalitres per annum （Glpa）.＊16 The Queensland Government Department of Environment and Resource Management （DERM） developed the policy to manage CBM water. DERM's Source: JOGMEC PhotoSource: JOGMEC PhotoFig13Arrow Energy Evaporation PondFig14Queensland Gas Company Field Compression StationTable5CBM Water Production and Management OptionsProjectCBM water productionGas SupplyBeneficial use and treatment optionsQCLNG160-180 ML/d＊11440 TJ/d＊2GLNG90 ML/pd600 TJ/d APLNG170 ML/pd1370 TJ/dBeneficial use options such as tree cropping, supply of water to mines and reinjection. Treatment options such as desalination plant, brine processing unit and brine evaporation ponds.Beneficial use options such as portable water supply, industrial use （coal mines） treated irrigation and untreated irrigation. Treatment in the form of desalination （reverse osmosis）.CBM water will require treatment before implementing beneficial use options being considered such as industrial use, urban water supply, agricultural use, aquifer injection and salt recovery.＊1：ML/d - megalitres per day, million litres＊2：TJ/d -terajoules per daySource: GLNG EIS, APLNG EIS and QCLNG EIS55石油・天然ガスレビューreferred management options for CBM water are reinjection or treatment for beneficial use. Beneficial uses of CBM water include aquaculture and human consumption of aquatic foods, coal washing, dust suppression, industrial use, irrigation and livestock watering.＊17 Reinjection of the CBM water requires water storage facilities and well drilling in order to return the water underground. Whereas treatment at a reserve osmosis plant requires three ponds for the different stages of treatment including raw untreated water, processed water or brine and lastly fresh processed water. Different beneficial use and treatment options have been chosen for the projects depending on suitability.（4）Taxation Changes An unexpected complication for CBM LNG projects was the Australian Government's announcement of new taxation arrangements. On 2 May 2010, the federal government led by former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd proposed a Resource Super Profits Tax （RSPT） to apply to all resource projects from 1 July 2012 and in effect replace state royalties. The RSPT would not apply to projects in offshore federal waters under the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax （PRRT） but would apply to onshore CBM LNG projects. Up until the announcement the Queensland state government royalty rate of 10 per cent applied to アナリシスonshore CBM LNG projects. The timing of the announcement was not ideal for the fledgling CBM LNG industry as several proponents were scheduled to make a final investment decision in 2010 and were negotiating with customers for LNG supply and equity. The announcement created uncertainty for the industry and it was necessary for proponents to take a step back and reassess the economics of their developments. On 2 July 2010, the new Prime Minister Julia Gillard announced the cancellation of the RSPT and that the existing PRRT will be extended to cover all oil, gas and CBM projects, onshore and offshore Australia. The PotentialFeedApprovedExistingCapacity mtpa160140120100806040200Source: JOGMECFig16Australia's Existing, Approved & Potential LNG CapacityShell/PetroChinaAPLNGGLNGQCLNGmtpa605040302010020142015201620172018201920202021Source: JOGMECSource: JOGMECFig15Australia's Major Existing, Approved & Proposed LNG ProjectsFig17Major CBM LNG Project Potential LNG Capacity2011.1 Vol.45 No.156ustralia's Emerging CBM LNG IndustryPRRT will apply from 1 July 2012 at a rate 40 per cent of the taxable profit of a project. All state and federal resources taxes will be creditable against PRRT liabilities from a project but not transferable or refundable. The federal government has said it will only credit royalty rates that applied or were scheduled to apply as of 2 May 2010 but resources companies believe the government should credit any future increases. The changes mean onshore CBM projects will pay state royalties as soon as operations commence, but offshore oil and gas projects only pay the PRRT liability once the operations are profitable. In submissions to the government's Policy Transition Group （PTG） Santos and ConocoPhillips said their onshore CBM LNG projects would be at a competitive disadvantage because they have to pay PRRT and state royalties unlike offshore projects. The federal government established the PTG to provide advice to the government by the end of 2010 to enable supporting legislation to be introduced to parliament in 2011 and to consult with affected companies. On October 1, the PTG released an issues paper on the new taxation arrangements for the resources sector. The deadline for companies for submissions was October 28. According to the issues paper LNG companies would be taxed at the point where the gas entered the liquefaction process rather than the export point. If retained in the final legislation this offers the CBM LNG producers a favourable taxation rate. Consultation with the industry continues.＊18（5） Competition Another challenging aspect not only for CBM LNG projects but for conventional LNG projects as well is competition. In Australia the Gorgon and Pluto LNG projects are under construction, QCLNG has been approved and there are several major and some smaller proposed LNG projects and expansions. The major LNG projects include Pluto Train 2 and 3, Wheatstone, Ichthys, Browse, Sunrise and Scarborough as well as the floating LNG projects Prelude and Bonaparte. Furthermore, the seven potential Queensland CBM LNG projects have already been covered in detail. Table6Projected Supply of Trades Versus Projected New and Replacement JobsNumber of new jobs for trades people 2010-2015Workers availableRetirements & resignationsProjected shortfallConstruction 7,800Mining Operations 15,000Gas Operations 1,00010,00022,00035,800Source: National Resources Sector Employment TaskforceTable7CBM LNG Industry Potential Labour DemandsProjectQCLNGGLNGAPLNGShell/PetroChinaTotalLabour Peak ConstructionLabour Operation4,000-5,0003,000-4,0004,000-5,0002,500-3,00013,500-17,0001,0001,0001,000200-3003,300Source:Energy Skills Queensland, Company HP57石油・天然ガスレビュー Some of the LNG projects were scheduled to make a final investment decision by the end of 2010 with most of the others looking at 2011 and 2012. The majority of these LNG proposals are targeting first production between 2015 and 2016. The LNG proposals will be competing for customers and are likely to face increased costs for skilled labour and materials. Skill shortages are emerging as the demand for labour increases not only in the LNG industry but the whole of the resources sector. In October 2010, the Australian Bureau of Agricultural Economics （ABARE） reported there were 72 advanced minerals and energy projects worth $132.9 billion, of which 27 are in Western Australia and 20 are in Queensland. The Australian Government established the National Resources Sector Employment Taskforce to address the expected skills shortage and the Queensland Government set up Energy Skills Queensland to lead the workforce planning and development for the CBM LNG industry. The National Resources Sector Employment Taskforce Report expects skills shortages by late 2011 to early 2012, especially in Western Australia and Queensland. The Taskforce projected a shortfall of 35,800 tradespeople in the resources sector by 2015. Energy Skills Queensland forecast a total construction workforce of up to 17,000 would be required for the four major CBM LNG projects. There will be project delays and increased costs if the proponents are unable to secure and retain labour. アナリシスQCLNGGLNGAPLNGShell/PetroChinaGorgonPlutoPluto2&3SunriseBrowseIchthysWheatstonePreludeBonaparteScarborough0Source: JOGMECContractedUncontracted5101520Fig18LNG Agreements by Project in mtpa Wood Mackenzie Global LNG Service forecasts global LNG demand will increase from approximately 213 mtpa in 2010 to 266 mtpa in 2015. The North West Shelf and Darwin LNG provide 20 mtpa of Australia's production capacity and the country has proposals for about 100 mtpa of potential LNG capacity. All these projects will not be able to proceed but those that have already signed up customers have the advantage and are more likely to prevail.Conclusion Queensland is attempting a world first by using CBM as feedstock to produce LNG. The investment by major international companies such as BG Group, Shell, ConocoPhillips, Petronas and Total provides credibility to the emerging CBM LNG industry. The fact that Asian buyers have signed up for LNG agreements and equity has further validated the industry. BG Group has the advantage of being the first to approve its QCLNG project. The GLNG and APLNG projects were scheduled for approval by the end of 2010 but have been delayed until 2011. Shell and PetroChina plan to follow later with an approval date of 2012-13. The four smaller projects will remain in the background unless new gas supplies are found. The projects that best manage the challenges and unique characteristics of CBM are more likely to be realised. It is crucial CBM LNG proponents maintain good relationships with landholders for the stable 2011.1 Vol.45 No.158ustralia's Emerging CBM LNG Industrydevelopment of projects. Furthermore, the management of ramp up gas and CBM water is an important part of the planning process for these projects. In Australia there is over 100 mtpa of potential LNG production capacity but not all projects will be able to proceed. The expected demand for labour and materials means greater competition and higher costs for the LNG industry. The projects able to sign up customers and secure labour will be in a stronger position.【Conversion】1 kilojoule （KJ） = 1000 joules （J）1 megajoule （MJ） = 1 million （10?） joules1 gigajoule （GJ） = 1 billion （10?） joulessales gas 1 million cubic feet （mcf）= 1.06 terajoules（TJ）sales gas 1 billion cubic feet （bcf） = 1.06 petajoules （PJ） sales gas 1 petajoule （PJ） = 26.71 million cubic metres （mcm） 1 million cubic metres （mcm） = 35.31 million cubic feet （mcf）1 joule （J） = 0.239 calories （cal） 1 kilojoule （KJ） = 0.948 British thermal units （Btu）1 kilojoule （KJ） = 0.948 British thermal units （Btu） = 239 million caloriesBritish thermal units 100,000 Btu = 1 thermBritish thermal units 1 million Btu = 1.055 GJ = 1 million cubic feet （mcf） = 10 thermsBritish thermal units 1 billion Btu = 1.055 TJ = 1 mcfBritish thermal units 1 trillion Btu = 1.055 PJ =1 bcf＜注・解説＞＊１： BG Group HP www.bg-group.com QCLNG HP www.qclng.com.au＊２： Santos Limited HP www.santos.com Gladstone LNG HP www.glng.com.au＊３： Kogas confirms interest in Gladstone LNG, the Australian Financial Review, 13/10/10＊４： Australia Pacific LNG HP www.aplng.com.au＊５： Shell website www.shell.com Shell LNG Australia Initial Advice Statement, May 2009＊６： EnergyQuarterly November 2010, EnergyQuest＊７： Liquefied Natural Gas Ltd HP www.lnglimited.com.au＊８： Project Sun LNG, Gladstone, Initial Advice Statement, May 2009＊９： Sojitz works on stalled LNG project, the Australian Financial Review, 16/11/09＊10： Southern Cross LNG HP www.southerncrosslng.com＊11： Energy World Corporation Annual Report 2010＊12： Australian Mine Atlas 2010, Geoscience Australia＊13： Port of Gladstone Western Basin Master Plan, The Coordinator-General, March 201059石油・天然ガスレビューAナリシス＊14： Blueprint for Queensland's LNG Industry, Department of Environment and Resource Management, Queensland Government＊15： Gladstone LNG Environmental Impact Statement＊16： Construction Workforce Plan, Construction Skills Queensland CSG/LNG Industry, November 2010＊17： Coal Seam Gas Water Management Policy, Department of Environment and Resource Management, Queensland Government, June 2010＊18： Australian Government, Policy Transition Group Issues Paper, 1/10/10執筆者紹介Lainie Kelly （レイニー ケリー）オーストラリア・シドニー生まれ。University of Sydney, Bachelor of Arts（シドニー大学、文学部）。JETRO シドニー、調査員を経て、2005年7月よりJOGMECシドニー調査員（石油･天然ガス部門）となり、現在に至る。古代史に関心を寄せており、週末は、水泳とサイクリングに励んでいる。2011.1 Vol.45 No.160 |
| 地域1 | 大洋州 |
| 国1 | |
| 地域2 | |
| 国2 | |
| 地域3 | |
| 国3 | |
| 地域4 | |
| 国4 | |
| 地域5 | |
| 国5 | |
| 地域6 | |
| 国6 | |
| 地域7 | |
| 国7 | |
| 地域8 | |
| 国8 | |
| 地域9 | |
| 国9 | |
| 地域10 | |
| 国10 | |
| 国・地域 | 大洋州 |
Global Disclaimer(免責事項)
このウェブサイトに掲載されている情報はエネルギー・金属鉱物資源機構（以下「機構」）が信頼できると判断した各種資料に基づいて作成されていますが、機構は本資料に含まれるデータおよび情報の正確性又は完全性を保証するものではありません。また、本資料は読者への一般的な情報提供を目的としたものであり、何らかの投資等に関する特定のアドバイスの提供を目的としたものではありません。したがって、機構は本資料に依拠して行われた投資等の結果については一切責任を負いません。なお、機構が作成した図表類等を引用・転載する場合は、機構資料である旨を明示してくださいますようお願い申し上げます。機構以外が作成した図表類等を引用・転載する場合は個別にお問い合わせください。
※Copyright (C) Japan Organization for Metals and Energy Security All Rights Reserved.
PDFダウンロード3.9MB
本レポートはPDFファイルでのご提供となります。
上記リンクより閲覧・ダウンロードができます。
アンケートの送信
送信しますか？
送信しています。
送信完了しました。
送信できませんでした、入力したデータを確認の上再度お試しください。