Mexican fuel investment persists despite hurdles
Permitting delays have held up planned spending in Mexico's fuel sector but investment will continue in 2021 despite low expectations for a break in the political logjam, market participants say.
Mexico's energy regulatory commission (CRE) issued 57pc fewer retail fuel and storage permits in 2020 compared with the prior year — down to 175 from 407 in 2019, president of fuel retailers' association Onexpo Roberto Diaz de Leon said during the Argus Mexican Fuel Forum today. Another 400 are awaiting decisions, Onexpo estimates.
"Many investments are halted in the energy sector," Diaz de Leon said. "What we have learned is that neither the state nor the private sector can move forward on their own."
This has slowed the pace of overall spending in the Mexican fuel sector, which opened to private-sector and international investment following the 2014 energy reform. While retail brands have proliferated, greenfield stations and new storage development have lagged expectations.
Complaints from investors that the permit delays — including those for fuel imports — are part of a government effort to favor state-owned companies led to a call from US officials earlier this year for fairer treatment.
Despite the issues, the industry remains hopeful that non-Pemex brands and suppliers will continue to develop. Onexpo expects retailers to invest Ps12bn ($596.1mn) in 2021 in existing retail fuel stations, mainly for improvements, training and new technology such as contact-free payment methods. This is down by 40pc from almost Ps20bn invested during 2020, but much of that investment went to upgrading or replacing fuel pumps because of new regulatory requirements, Diaz de Leon said.
Mexico now has 12,769 retail fuel stations with over 170 retail fuel brands including domestic and international firms. This is up by 8.5pc from 11,774 in December 2017, when the first non-Pemex brands started to arrive to the country.
"The evolution of our sector continues," Diaz de Leon said. "It will keep maturing, and current firms will consolidate which implies some brands will disappear, others will merge and new ones will appear."
The Mexican fuel storage business expanded in 2020 as storage filled because of declining demand, but this was only for terminals that were already developed because of the permitting delay. Central Mexican Terminal's (TCM) 400,000 bl fuel storage facility in central Mexico started 2021 with about twice as much fuel capacity as in early 2020, before the Covid-19 pandemic hit, TCM director Celeste Rebora said.
About 40mn bl of additional storage capacity is held up by permitting delays, she estimates. Private-sector investors have brought 10 major fuel storage projects on line since 2016, adding 5.4mn bl to the 26mn bl of existing capacity managed by state-owned Pemex.
Despite political hurdles and the lower demand because of the pandemic, TCM believes fuel storage capacity will increase in Mexico this year.
The government has taken much-needed long-term certainty out of the market with recent changes to the fuel import permitting process, that shortens for how long companies can be assured of holding the permit.
Without an offtaker that has at least a 10-year permit to import fuels, it is hard to find a bank that will pay to finance a storage project because of the lack of certainty, Rebora said.
Moreover, retailers and distributors need certainty from major suppliers, which they cannot get as new fuel import rules eliminated 20-year fuel import permits and introduced only five-year import permits.
"If a new supplier cannot guarantee supply for more than one or the maximum five years, how will retailers or distributors change to a new supplier?" Rebora said.
Related news posts
Shell's 1Q profit supported by LNG and refining
Shell's 1Q profit supported by LNG and refining
London, 2 May (Argus) — Shell delivered a better-than-expected profit for the first quarter of 2024, helped by a strong performance from its LNG and oil product businesses. The company reported profit of $7.4bn for January-March, up sharply from an impairment-hit $474mn in the previous three months but down from $8.7bn in the first quarter of 2023. Adjusted for inventory valuation effects and one-off items, Shell's profit came in at $7.7bn, 6pc ahead of the preceding three months and above analysts' estimates of $6.3bn-$6.5bn, although it was 20pc lower than the first quarter of 2023 when gas prices were higher. Shell's oil and gas production increased by 3pc on the quarter in January-March and was broadly flat compared with a year earlier at 2.91mn b/d of oil equivalent (boe/d). For the current quarter, Shell expects production in a range of 2.55mn-2.81mn boe/d, reflecting the effect of scheduled maintenance across its portfolio. The company's Integrated Gas segment delivered a profit of $2.76bn in the first quarter, up from $1.73bn in the previous three months and $2.41bn a year earlier. The segment benefited from increased LNG volumes — 7.58mn t compared to 7.06mn t in the previous quarter and 7.19mn t a year earlier — as well as favourable deferred tax movements and lower operating expenses. For the current quarter, Shell expects to produce 6.8mn-7.4mn t of LNG. In the downstream, the company's Chemicals and Products segment swung to a profit of $1.16bn during the quarter from an impairment-driven loss of $1.83bn in the previous three months, supported by a strong contribution from oil trading operations and higher refining margins driven by greater utilisation of its refineries and global supply disruptions. Shell's refinery throughput increased to 1.43mn b/d in the first quarter from 1.32mn b/d in fourth quarter of last year and 1.41mn b/d in January-March 2023. Shell has maintained its quarterly dividend at $0.344/share. It also said it has completed the $3.5bn programme of share repurchases that it announced at its previous set of results and plans to buy back another $3.5bn of its shares before the company's next quarterly results announcement. The company said it expects its capital spending for the year to be within a $22bn-$25bn range. By Jon Mainwaring Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
New US rule may let some shippers swap railroads
New US rule may let some shippers swap railroads
Washington, 30 April (Argus) — US rail regulators today issued a final rule designed to help customers switch railroads in cases of poor rail service, but it is already drawing mixed reviews. Reciprocal switching, which allows freight shippers or receivers captive to a single railroad to access to an alternate carrier, has been allowed under US Surface Transportation Board (STB) rules. But shippers had not used existing STB rules to petition for reciprocal switching in 35 years, prompting regulators to revise rules to encourage shippers to pursue switching while helping resolve service problems. "The rule adopted today has broken new ground in the effort to provide competitive options in an extraordinarily consolidated rail industry," said outgoing STB chairman Martin Oberman. The five-person board unanimously approved a rule that would allow the board to order a reciprocal switching agreement if a facility's rail service falls below specified levels. Orders would be for 3-5 years. "Given the repeated episodes of severe service deterioration in recent years, and the continuing impediments to robust and consistent rail service despite the recent improvements accomplished by Class I carriers, the board has chosen to focus on making reciprocal switching available to shippers who have suffered service problems over an extended period of time," Oberman said today. STB commissioner Robert Primus voted to approve the rule, but also said it did not go far enough. The rule adopted today is "unlikely to accomplish what the board set out to do" since it does not cover freight moving under contract, he said. "I am voting for the final rule because something is better than nothing," Primus said. But he said the rule also does nothing to address competition in the rail industry. The Association of American Railroads (AAR) is reviewing the 154-page final rule, but carriers have been historically opposed to reciprocal switching proposals. "Railroads have been clear about the risks of expanded switching and the resulting slippery slope toward unjustified market intervention," AAR said. But the trade group was pleased that STB rejected "previous proposals that amounted to open access," which is a broad term for proposals that call for railroads to allow other carriers to operate over their tracks. The American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association declined to comment but has indicated it does not expect the rule to have an appreciable impact on shortline traffic, service or operations. Today's rule has drawn mixed reactions from some shipper groups. The National Industrial Transportation League (NITL), which filed its own reciprocal switching proposal in 2011, said it was encouraged by the collection of service metrics required under the rule. But "it is disheartened by its narrow scope as it does not appear to apply to the vast majority of freight rail traffic that moves under contracts or is subject to commodity exemptions," said NITL executive director Nancy O'Liddy, noting it was a departure from the group's original petition which sought switching as a way to facilitate railroad economic competitiveness. The Chlorine Institute said, in its initial analysis, that it does not "see significant benefit for our shipper members since it excludes contract traffic which covers the vast majority of chlorine and other relevant chemical shipments." By Abby Caplan Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
HSFO demand supports Rotterdam 1Q bunker sales
HSFO demand supports Rotterdam 1Q bunker sales
London, 30 April (Argus) — Total sales of fossil bunker fuels and marine biodiesel blends at the port of Rotterdam were 2.45mn t in the first quarter this year, up by 13pc compared with the final three months of 2023 but 9pc lower year on year, according to official port data. Sales firmed across the board quarter on quarter, even though market participants had described spot bunker fuel demand in the region as "mostly limited" and shipping demand as lacklustre. High-sulphur fuel oil (HSFO) sales rose the most. Disruption in the Red Sea resulted in many vessels re-routing around the southern tip of Africa, increasing the incentive of bunkering with HSFO as opposed to very low-sulphur fuel oil (VLSFO) and marine gasoil (MGO), according to market participants. The longer journeys meant that vessels on the route increased their fuel consumption to reduce delivery delays, supporting conventional bunker fuel sales at Rotterdam. Higher prices for HSFO in Singapore also helped support HSFO demand in Rotterdam. Marine biodiesel sales at Rotterdam increased by 13pc on the quarter and by 76pc on the year in January-March, despite the Dutch government's decision to half the Dutch renewable tickets (HBE-G) multiplier for shipping at the turn of the year. The move has led to a substantial increase in prices for advanced fatty acid methyl ester (Fame) 0 blends in the Amsterdam-Rotterdam-Antwerp (ARA) hub. The inclusion of shipping in the EU's Emissions Trading System (ETS) from January may have lent support to demand for biofuel blends. Marine biodiesel made up 11pc of total bunker fuel sales at Rotterdam in the first quarter, the same share as the previous quarter, which was a record high. LNG bunker sales at Rotterdam in January-March soared by 45pc on the quarter and by 150pc on the year. By Hussein Al-Khalisy Rotterdam bunker sales t Fuel 1Q24 4Q23 1Q23 q-o-q% y-o-y% VLSFO & ULSFO 857,579 847,862 1,205,288 1 -29 HSFO 818,028 643,218 809,871 27 1 MGO/MDO 383,409 361,585 468,373 6 -18 Biofuel blends 262,634 233,108 149,206 13 76 Total 2,453,610 2,177,078 2,685,515 13 -9 LNG (m³) 131,960 91,305 52,777 45 150 Port of Rotterdam Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
G7 countries put timeframe on 'unabated' coal phase-out
G7 countries put timeframe on 'unabated' coal phase-out
London, 30 April (Argus) — G7 countries today committed to phasing out "unabated coal power generation" by 2035 — putting a timeframe on a coal phase-out for the first time. The communique, from a meeting of G7 climate, energy and environment ministers in Turin, northern Italy, represents "an historic agreement" on coal, Canadian environment minister Steven Guilbeault said. Although most G7 nations have set a deadline for phasing out coal-fired power, the agreement marks a step forward for Japan in particular, which had previously not made the commitment, and is a "milestone moment", senior policy advisor at think-tank E3G Katrine Petersen said. The G7 countries are Italy — this year's host — Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the UK and the US. The EU is a non-enumerated member. But the pledge contains a caveat in its reference to "unabated" coal-fired power — suggesting that abatement technologies such as carbon capture and storage could justify its use, while some of the wording around a deadline is less clear. The communique sets a timeframe of "the first half of [the] 2030s or in a timeline consistent with keeping a limit of 1.5°C temperature rise within reach, in line with countries' net-zero pathways". OECD countries should end coal use by 2030 and the rest of the world by 2040, in order to align with the global warming limit of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels set out in the Paris Agreement, according to research institute Climate Analytics. The countries welcomed the outcomes of the UN Cop 28 climate summit , pledging to "accelerate the phase out of unabated fossil fuels so as to achieve net zero in energy systems by 2050". It backed the Cop 28 goal to triple renewable energy capacity by 2030 and added support for a global target for energy storage in the power sector of 1.5TW by 2030. The group committed to submit climate plans — known as nationally determined contributions (NDCs) — with "the highest possible ambition" from late this year or in early 2025. And it also called on the IEA to "provide recommendations" next year on how to implement a transition away from fossil fuels. The G7 also reiterated its commitment to a "fully or predominantly decarbonised power sector by 2035" — first made in May 2022 and highlighted roles for carbon management, carbon markets, hydrogen and biofuels. Simon Stiell, head of UN climate body the UNFCCC, urged the G7 and G20 countries to lead on climate action, in a recent speech . The group noted in today's outcome that "further actions from all countries, especially major economies, are required". The communique broadly reaffirmed existing positions on climate finance, although any concrete steps are not likely to be taken ahead of Cop 29 in November. The group underlined its pledge to end "inefficient fossil fuel subsidies" by 2025 or earlier, but added a new promise to "promote a common definition" of the term, which is likely to increase countries' accountability. The group will report on its progress towards ending those subsidies next year, it added. Fostering energy security The communique placed a strong focus on the need for "diverse, resilient, and responsible energy technology supply chains, including manufacturing and critical minerals". It noted the important of "guarding against possible weaponisation of economic dependencies on critical minerals and critical raw materials" — many of which are mined and processed outside the G7 group. Energy security held sway on the group's take on natural gas. It reiterated its stance that gas investments "can be appropriate… if implemented in a manner consistent with our climate objectives" and noted that increased LNG deliveries could play a key role. By Georgia Gratton Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
Business intelligence reports
Get concise, trustworthy and unbiased analysis of the latest trends and developments in oil and energy markets. These reports are specially created for decision makers who don’t have time to track markets day-by-day, minute-by-minute.
Learn more