De hecho, en los últimos años para cubrir los requerimientos de gas, desde mayo a septiembre Argentina arrienda un barco con gas natural licuado, por el cual paga un precio altísimo, y compra gas a Bolivia. Aun así, esa importación no es suficiente para cubrir los déficits de 20 millones de metros cúbicos diarios.

Según consigna el diario argentino Clarín, “la intención del Ministerio de Planificación de Argentina sería arrancar con las importaciones de gas desde Chile en el próximo invierno, con el fin de reforzar el abastecimiento y reducir al mínimo los cortes a las industrias en los meses previos a las cruciales elecciones de octubre de 2011″.

Chile ahora tiene holguras. Tras haber invertido unos US$ 1.600 millones, hoy Chile cuenta con dos plantas de gas natural licuado (GNL) en funcionamiento. Una de ellas está en Quintero y puede regasificar 10 millones de metros cúbicos diarios, pero tiene prevista una ampliación que elevará el volumen a 20 millones de metros cúbicos diarios.

La otra planta se encuentra en Mejillones, que está en condiciones de regasificar hasta 5,5 millones de metros cúbicos diarios.

Como la producción de ambas plantas supera la actual demanda interna, Chile tiene excedentes de gas que puede reenviar a Argentina por los gasoductos que fueron construidos en los años 90.

Fuentes de gobierno dijeron que es posible concretar envíos de gas a Argentina para el invierno de 2011, sin embargo, indicaron que se requiere dar algunos pasos previos. Por ejemplo, realizar inversiones menores en la red de gasoductos -en los sistemas de compresores- para que técnicamente pueda enviarse el gas desde Chile a Argentina. Hoy, es posible que el gas circule en una sola dirección: de Argentina a Chile.

Adicionalmente, se necesita que la nación transandina adapte su normativa interna. En noviembre de 2009, Chile emitió un decreto que adecuó la regulación aduanera y estableció que el gas residencial tiene el mismo tratamiento que otras mercancías en tránsito, lo que significa que ese combustible, si se vende a terceros países, estará libre de cualquier tributación.

Además de exportar a Argentina, hay otras opciones que evalúa Chile. Una de ellas, enviar GNL a Argentina por el gasoducto GasAndes y que sea enviado hacia la VIII Región por el gasoducto del Pacífico. Otro camino es inyectar el GNL a Argentina por GasAndes y retirarlo por el norte de Chile o bien, en la Región de Magallanes.

Fuente: www.hidrocarburosbolivia.com

The Russian national anthem blared over the loudspeakers as dozens of oilmen and officials braved the freezing cold to watch the tanker come in, celebrating the launch of year-round oil production from Sakhalin-2, the largest oil and gas project in the world.They congratulated themselves and stared out to the sea with pride.

Yet this month’s event will be dwarfed by one to come early next year, when the sprawling plant on the tip of Russia’s Far Eastern island of Sakhalin begins producing liquefied natural gas, or LNG, a relatively new form of energy.

The advent of LNG may one day allow gas exporting countries, who gathered in Moscow last week to create a new organisation, to act as a cartel along the lines of Opec, holding sway over prices and supply, and thus consumers around the world.

Today, most natural gas is pumped through pipelines. Storage is difficult and the price of gas is linked to the price of oil.

Producers, like Russia’s Gazprom, set prices within decades-long contracts, typically lasting 25 years.

LNG changes all that. To make LNG, the gas is frozen into a liquid form, allowing it to be stored in tanks and shipped around the world, just like oil. And priced just like oil, too.

So far, most members of the Gas Exporting Countries Forum, an informal grouping that was transformed into a proper organisation at a meeting in Moscow this week, deny any ambition to create a Gas OPEC.

The meeting itself was confused. Energy ministers from a dozen countries, accounting for around 60 per cent of the world’s gas export supply gathered at a grand Moscow hotel, presided over by Vladimir Putin, the Russian prime minister.

They agreed to set up a headquarters in Doha, Qatar – the world’s main producer of LNG – and start the search for a secretary general.

They also claimed to adopt a charter, but no signing ceremony was held and no details released.

The loudest grumbles on price setting came from the energy ministers of Iran and Venezuela. Venezuela does not export any gas yet. While Iran probably possesses the world’s second largest reserves, its wholly inefficient industry, starved of foreign investment and outside technical help by the sanctions imposed over its nuclear programme, make it a net importer of gas.

Meanwhile, energy ministers from Arab countries spent a lot of time arguing that action must first be taken to boost the oil price, urging Russia to join OPEC in production cuts.

The whole gathering seemed like much ado about nothing – a token event designed to stir fears in the West rather than set up an organised group with a focused mission.

Yet that it is what many said when OPEC was first formed in the mid-1960s.

The Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries functioned haphazardly for years, before consolidating and showing its strength during the Yom Kippur War of 1973, when Saudi Arabia led an oil embargo on the West, imposed in retaliation for its support for Israel. This caused the oil price to quadruple and created serious shortages.

Fear over a “Gas OPEC” in the West stems largely from the fact that Russia has a record of using its energy exports as a political tool.

It is currently embroiled in a payment dispute with Ukraine, and has warned it will shut off the gas if Kiev fails to pay a bill for $2 billion by Dec 31. Because Ukraine is the conduit for gas supplies to Europe, other countries could be affected if the situation is not resolved.

This dispute, which has become an annual occurrence, largely comes down to money. But the first such spat came after Ukraine ushered in a Western-leaning government during the Orange Revolution in 2004. Gazprom, Russia’s state energy giant, sharply raised the price of its gas exports to Ukraine. Kiev was unable to pay and supplies were promptly cut off in midwinter, a step that also reduced the flow of gas to Europe, most of which travels through pipelines that cross Ukraine.

No-one is quite certain what happened earlier this year, when Russian oil supplies to the Czech Republic suddenly dropped the day after Prague agreed to host a radar station as part of America’s missile defence programme. Russia cited technical reasons. The Czech government was not so sure.

Now that oil prices have dropped below $50 a barrel, from a peak of $147 in mid-July, and gas prices have been brought down accordingly, producers have an interest in acting together, said Jonathan Stern, the head of gas research at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies.

If the price falls even further, he said the “operating costs of these countries start to be threatened, and we would start to hear some people saying the current pricing mechanism is not appropriate”.

Mr Putin himself warned at the Moscow meeting that the world would not enjoy cheap gas for much longer. But the use of LNG – of the kind that will be produced at Sakhalin-2 – will make a gas cartel most feasible.

So far, LNG production only makes up around 10 per cent of the world’s gas supply, mainly in Asia, but also in North America, Britain and Spain. When Sakhalin-2 is up and running, that proportion will immediately rise to 16 per cent.

Many wondered what exactly was at stake in 2006, when Sakhalin-2 operator RoyalDutch Shell became the target of a state campaign accusing the project of massive environmental violations. At the time, the project was the only major one in Russia not to include a local partner. The environmental allegations disappeared once Gazprom bought a majority stake in December 2006.

Many thought it was just another case of resource nationalism, as the oil price continued its climb to record highs. But the Kremlin will also have registered the strategic importance of LNG.

Origin Energy Ltd, fending off an $11 billion hostile bid from Britain’s BG Group Plc, is to spin off its coalbed methane assets into a joint venture with U.S. oil major ConocoPhillips.

Origin and Conoco said in statements on Monday that Conoco would contribute up to $8 billion toward a joint venture that will develop the massive coal-seam gas (CSG) assets and build a liquefied natural gas (LNG) project.

A BG spokeswoman declined to comment immediately on the move but analysts said it could force the UK gas producer to raise its A$15.50 per share bid which was aimed at growing BG’s Asia-Pacific LNG production arm to feed its booming Asian LNG sales business.

Origin’s shares rose nearly 28 percent to a record high of A$19.99 on news of the venture.

Obviously, ConocoPhillips’ joining is a positive. I suppose it shows that there is good market out there for what Origin has got,” said Peter Chilton, a fund manager with Constellation Capital Management, which does not own Origin shares.

Conoco said it would pay $5 billion to the joint venture and would carry Origin Energy for their first A$1.15 billion ($950 million) in joint venture expenses.

It will also pay $500 million into the venture when the partners agree to proceed with each train or phase of the planned four-train CSG to LNG project. The deal would take the financial burden of developing the reserves off Origin, whose main business currently is retailing power and gas.

Origin said after the completion of the transaction, it would pay a dividend of 25 Australian cents, doubling the 2008 dividend, and commence a A$1.275 billion buy-back of shares.

GROWING RESERVES

Conoco said it anticipated booking reserves of around 100 million barrels of oil equivalent from the joint venture in 2008 and the significant size of Origin’s coal fields means it could make substantial additional bookings in the years ahead. Like most oil majors, the company is struggling to add reserves as the biggest resource holders like Saudi Arabia and Russia restrict access, preferring to have their state oil companies develop their richest fields.
The No.3 U.S. oil company by market value already operates a 3.2 million tonnes a year LNG plant in Australia’s northern city of Darwin.

The joint venture combines Origin’s extensive CSG reserves and resources and operational capabilities, with ConocoPhillips’ proven LNG and CSG development and operating capabilities,” Origin Managing Director Grant King said in a statement.

After its board rejected a friendly approach from BG at A$15.50 per share on May 30, Origin invited proposals as to how best exploit its CSG reserves, with options ranging from the sale of its gas assets to partnership in a LNG export project.

The deal is conditional on approval by Australia’s Foreign Investment Review Board and Conoco said it expects it to be completed in October.

BG’s offer closes on Sept. 26. If Origin’s shareholders reject the bid and BG fails to increase it, Origin management can proceed without consulting shareholders, a company spokesman said.

Origin, which holds the largest CSG reserves in Australia, also said an independent expert, Grant Samuel & Associates, has valued its shares at between A$28.55-A$30.71 a piece.

The Conoco-Origin joint venture plans to intially develop two LNG processing trains, each having capacity of about 3.5 million tonnes per annum (mtpa), with first production in 2014, and then to go on to boost the number of trains to four or more.
CSG fields take up to 18 months to ramp up to full production, when the LNG facility can start up, and Origin has agreed to find a local market for this gas, which could depress local prices or prompt it so sell the gas to a rival, such as Arrow Energy, who will already have a LNG facility onstream.
The joint venture would market the LNG, which is gas cooled to liquid so it can be transported in ships, primarily to Asian markets and ConocoPhillips would leading the marketing venture for the first 10 years.
“This joint venture better balances ConocoPhillips’ oil and gas resource mix. In addition, the company’s long-term production growth is expected to benefit from a steady, secure source of resource additions,” Jim Mulva, ConocoPhillips’ Chairman and Chief Executive Officer said in a statement.
Origin said the Conoco deal values Origin’s CSG proved, probable and possible (3P) reserves at up to A$1.88 a gigajoule, higher than the A$1.65/gj Malayasia’s Petronas agreed to pay for a stake in Santos Ltd in May.
BG shares traded up 4.5 percent to 1,079 pence by 0835 GMT, outperforming a 3.4 percent rise in the DJ Stoxx European oil and gas sector index. Shares in Origin were up 12.8 percent at A$17.65. (Additional reporting by Denny Thomas in Sydney; Editing by Louise Ireland/Dhara Ranasinghe)