Q&A: PetroReconcavo expands Brazil gas role

: Electricity, Natural gas
21/12/20

PetroReconcavo is gradually expanding its participation in Brazil's burgeoning gas market as state-controlled Petrobras pulls back. Regulatory and new business director Joao Vitor Moreira shared the company's plans to expand onshore production and its role in the wholesale gas market.

How does PetroReconcavo evaluate the opening of Brazil's natural gas market?

The company has been an active player in the gas market opening from the start. This is an important process but it will take more time for competition to grow. The reality is that there is a lack of supply. Many companies are eager to participate in this process, but they simply do not have gas available to sell. Several companies participated in the distributors' tender offers, but many did not have available gas supply so they would have needed to purchase gas internationally for prices that were much higher than initially expected. Since we have the gas and low lifting costs, we can offer prices that are more competitive. We only offered gas that we could supply, which allowed us to sign with Potigas and PBGas.

PetroReconcavo was selected to negotiate with Ceara state distributor Cegas, but ultimately withdrew from the offer, as did two other participants. Why did PetroReconcavo pull out?

In our case, we had to decide how to allocate the gas supply we had available. We had already reached an agreement with Potigas and had to make a commercial decision. Access to gas transport infrastructure was not the issue nor was transport capacity. But the transport tariffs offered by pipeline operator TAG in its recent open season were higher than we expected.

Is PetroReconcavo also marketing gas to large industrial clients on the wholesale market?

The wholesale market has huge potential. Just like the wholesale power market, we see a large number of potential industrial clients. In northeastern Brazil, the opening started with the distributors, but for more rapid expansion of the wholesale market, states still need to pass their own gas regulations. Several states are already moving in this direction. For the wholesale market to advance, there need to be clear rules about minimum consumption and access to distribution networks. PetroReconcavo's production is strategically located near industrial clients, many of which are already connected to the network. In the short and medium-term, we still expect to have a strong relationship with the distributors, but as regulations mature, we will migrate large clients to the wholesale market.

PetroReconcavo recently took control of the Miranga cluster. What are the company's plans for these fields?

Our objective is to replicate the model that we tested with the acquisition of Potiguar E&P, where we initially made quick investments to boost output. These fields produced more than 2mn m3/d in the past, but many wells were hibernated and Petrobras stopped investing in maintenance. During the next 12 months, we will focus on bringing these wells back on stream. When we took over assets that were part of Potiguar E&P, we used this model to double production in 18 months. At the Miranga cluster, we expect to increase production from 400,000 m3/d to 1.5mn m3/d.

Does the company have a similar strategy for the Remanso cluster?

We have been operating these fields for Petrobras for more than 20 years and have already had many opportunities to raise output. This means that a large share of the quick investments have already been made. But we still see very attractive options. We are working to extend the concessions. Once this process is approved, we can make longer-term investments.

How has the government's program to revitalize the onshore oil and gas industry (Reate) contributed to PetroReconcavo's investment strategy?

The Reate program has played an important role in revitalizing Brazil's onshore industry. One of the elements of this program is the reduction of royalties. This program reduces royalties for all incremental production, which means that whenever we acquire a new field, royalties can fall from 10pc to 5pc on any production above the (hydrocarbons regulator) ANP's certified output. The CNPE (National Energy Policy Council) is also working on reducing royalties for smaller companies. We already received this benefit for Potiguar E&P. This is fundamental to increase investments, because any initiative that brings down lifting costs will allow us to invest more.

Is PetroReconcavo evaluating other acquisitions?

PetroReconcavo was the first company to acquire fields from Petrobras and the company still has several assets to sell. We are well positioned to take over some of these assets, because we have been in this market for 20 years.

Related news posts

Argus illuminates the markets by putting a lens on the areas that matter most to you. The market news and commentary we publish reveals vital insights that enable you to make stronger, well-informed decisions. Explore a selection of news stories related to this one.

25/12/22

Viewpoint: CSAPR sentiment bearish despite coal use

Houston, 22 December (Argus) — Expectations for lower prices is likely to persist in the federal Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) allowance markets next year as they remain oversupplied, even with higher levels of coal-fired generation. The seasonal NOx markets have been more active this year compared to 2024, when prices essentially flatlined due to regulatory and legal uncertainty brought about by a barrage of lawsuits filed against the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for its "good neighbor" plan. That plan, which the agency finalized in 2023 under former president Joe Biden, sought to help downwind states meet the 2015 national air quality standards for ozone. The plan imposes more stringent ozone season NOx caps for power plants in more than 20 upwind states, as well as setting new limits on some industrial facilities. But the plan is now essentially defunct after the US Supreme Court halted its implementation in June 2024. This led the EPA to return to less-rigorous NOx emissions limits tied to older ozone standards and reshuffle the participating states into the Group 2 and "expanded" Group 2 markets. Argus launched its assessment of the latter in February 2025. EPA said in March it intends to reconsider the good neighbor plan in order to give states more freedom in developing their own ozone reduction plans. The announcement led to the US District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals pausing a lawsuit challenging the legality of the good neighbor plan until the agency completes its reconsideration, and which could culminate in new regulations by fall 2026. But those developments did little to move the seasonal NOx markets, which have already been sluggish due to oversupply and weak compliance demand, leading to more dramatic price fluctuations when trades do occur. Argus has assessed Group 2 allowances at $875/short ton (st) since 1 December and expanded Group 2 allowances at $850/st since 24 October. It is unclear how US president Donald Trump's current hostility towards environmental regulations will affect the administration's attitude towards the existing CSAPR allowance trading markets, but it seems likely that they are here to stay. The EPA likely is "digging into the air transport modeling that they have to understand what their options are," and which could potentially echo its determination during Trump's first term that states had adequately addressed downwind pollution, said Carrie Jenks, executive director of Harvard Law School's Environmental and Energy Law Program. "The EPA is committed to advancing cooperative federalism and working with states on state implementation plans (SIPs) to provide clean air for all Americans," the agency said in December. But extensive case law suggests that the EPA has little room to give states more power to manage emissions as they see fit. Both the DC Circuit Court and the US Supreme Court have made it clear that the EPA must intervene if a state does not sufficiently lower its emissions, Jenks said. "So the EPA's hands, regardless of who's in the White House, are really tied," she said. As a result, the EPA will likely try to prolong the issue by giving states more time to draw up their own ozone-reduction plans. The debates over those plans could revolve around how the modeling of emissions is conducted and interpreted. Even if that modeling is challenged in the courts, it can take years for litigation to get resolved. More coal, more emissions Despite the continued dearth of activity in the seasonal NOx markets, increases in coal-fired generation, a significant source of NOx and SO2 emissions, have buoyed the outlook in those markets, heightening expectations for higher emissions. During the past year, stronger power demand and higher natural gas prices have allowed coal to take a larger market share, which has resulted in increased coal-fired power in grids that serve states covered by CSAPR. But NOx emissions during this year's ozone season, which ran from May through September, were lower than expected, according to market participants. Cumulative emissions in the Group 2 and expanded Group 2 markets rose by just 1pc and 4.2pc, respectively, and remained well below their overall limits. It was likely more cost-effective for power plants to run their NOx controls than to purchase or surrender additional allowances for compliance. Still, given the Trump administration's pro-coal agenda, it remains to be seen for how long increases in coal generation will continue and to what extent that will affect the CSAPR markets. Conversations over ballooning data center demand have also bled into the seasonal NOx markets as the Trump administration seeks to leverage coal to power that boom. There are currently a lot of moving parts that make it difficult to make predictions, including how competitive coal is compared to other energy sources such as renewables, where data centers get built, their demand flexibility, and the federal and state regulatory landscapes in the coming years, Jenks said. By Ida Balakrishna Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Viewpoint: US, European LNG spread may narrow in 2026

25/12/22

Viewpoint: US, European LNG spread may narrow in 2026

Houston, 22 December (Argus) — The spread between US and European LNG prices will likely narrow further in 2026, but forward prices indicate US LNG supply under long-term contracts will remain comfortably profitable in international spot markets until at least summer 2027 as a wave of new supply comes on line. A recent rally in the US natural gas market highlighted US LNG's tightening margins. The indicative long-term LNG contract price — 115pc of US benchmark Henry Hub plus a $3/mn Btu liquefaction fee — surpassed the Argus Gulf coast (AGC) spot fob price in early December for the first time in more than two years amid cold weather in the US, mild weather in Europe and high Atlantic basin freight rates. But the premium over the spot price was brief and caused no change to export schedules. The front-month Henry Hub contract quickly shed its gains on warmer weather, falling to $3.89/mn Btu on 16 December from a nearly three-year high of $5.29/mn Btu on 5 December. Prices hovered around $4/mn Btu through 19 December. The impact was solely on profit margins rather than fundamentals. Customers of US LNG facilities did not need to cancel cargoes under take-or-pay provisions because a profit incentive to maximize exports remained. Liquefaction costs are considered sunk, and the spread between Henry Hub and European LNG prices remained wide enough to more than cover shipping costs. Though rising exports may add to domestic pricing volatility during cold winter weather through the end of the decade, US and European gas futures today indicate long-term offtake from US LNG terminals will remain profitable until the summer of 2027, assuming freight rates of $80,000/d and a 50¢/mn Btu discount to the European benchmark TTF for northwest European deliveries. At that time, contracts with $3/mn Btu liquefaction fees could surpass delivered LNG prices in northwest Europe, though the arbitrage for US gas would remain open for contracts with lower fees (see chart) . Fees now range between $2.50-2.80/mn Btu for US supply coming on line toward the end of the decade. Contracts with fees on either end of that range remain below European LNG prices until summer 2029 and summer 2028, respectively, assuming freight rates of $80,000/d. But cargo cancellations are not always necessary when long-term US LNG contract prices surpass international prices. Terminal operators and their customers finalize annual delivery plans as well as upward and downward delivery tolerances before the start of each year, leaving less flexibility later in the year. If a customer wishes to cancel a cargo, they typically must notify the terminal up to two months in advance, which would likely only happen in an environment where the cost of 115pc of Henry Hub plus freight stabilizes above European LNG prices. The spread between Henry Hub and delivered European prices is wide enough to absorb freight costs through winter 2030-31. If an offtaker opts for a lower quantity in its delivery tolerance or cancels a cargo, the volume returns to the terminal operator, which could still market and sell the cargo on the spot market. This effectively shifts the seller of a cargo from the LNG customer to the LNG terminal operator. The likelihood of cancellations beyond 2027 may be higher in the spring and autumn shoulder seasons, when demand in Europe is typically lower. Depending on the previous winter, this may be more likely to occur in autumn, given the annual rebuild of Europe's underground gas inventories that begins in the spring. Additional liquefaction capacity has already helped tighten margins for US LNG since Europe's conflict-driven volatility in 2022 . The AGC fob's premium over the long-term indicative contract averaged $3.95/mn Btu through 19 December this year, down from $4.63/mn Btu, $5.37/mn Btu and $20.13/mn Btu in 2024, 2023 and 2022, respectively. But the anticipated convergence of US and European LNG is not guaranteed. Geopolitical conflict could disrupt existing trade patterns. And lower prices in Europe will be contingent on new LNG projects, led by the US and Qatar, maintaining their timelines, which are prone to delays from supply chain issues and workforce constraints. This would add upside risk to international prices and downside risk for Henry Hub if the delays are in the US. By Tray Swanson European LNG spot prices vs long-term US LNG $/mn Btu Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

US shale firms see subdued spending next year

25/12/22

US shale firms see subdued spending next year

New York, 22 December (Argus) — US president Donald Trump took to prime-time TV this week to reassure voters that 2026 will see a stronger economy, but US shale executives see little prospect of an imminent upturn in their business. US oil and gas firms plan to keep capital spending flat to slightly lower next year, according to a closely watched survey by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, as the industry grapples with lower oil prices. Although activity edged lower in the fourth quarter, uncertainty grew and companies remained increasingly wary about future prospects in the poll of 131 executives from Texas, southern New Mexico and northern Louisiana that was carried out earlier this month. "Decreasing oil prices are making many of our firm's wells uneconomic," one exploration and production (E&P) executive said. "Capital efficiencies and returns drive our investment decisions," another respondent said. "If economic conditions worsen, drilling and completion activities will cease in 2026." The muted outlook for spending next year comes as producers have adopted a wait-and-see approach in recent months, given an increasingly uncertain macro backdrop, with crude prices trading near four-year lows this week on fears of global oversupply. A number of shale operators have posted higher-than-expected production this year. At the same time, spending has come in below expectations as drilling operations become more efficient, a trend UK bank Barclays says could be repeated in 2026. The executives who took part in the Dallas Fed survey gave varied responses when asked about their spending plans for next year depending on their size. Large producers — or those with output of 10,000 b/d or more — were more likely to say they expect capital expenditure to remain close to this year's levels. The most selected response among smaller firms — with production under 10,000 b/d — was for a slight increase. Although there are more small firms in the US, the larger companies account for more than 80pc of total US output. When asked about the oil price they were using for capital planning in 2026, the average response among executives was $59/bl for WTI. That was down from the $68/bl average price for the US benchmark that firms planned to use this year. The Dallas Fed said it was not necessarily a surprise that companies were not planning to trim spending further given weaker oil prices. Capital-intensive care "Oil and gas is a capital-intensive business," the bank's senior business economist, Kunal Patel, said. "It takes a lot of money to sustain the wells, even to keep production flat, and so that's why I don't think you're seeing as many people looking to significantly cut." Also, the prices that companies are using to plan next year's budgets are not too far from current breakeven levels. And producers may yet respond with deeper cuts to spending if prices tumble again. Oil and natural gas production was relatively unchanged in the fourth quarter, the survey showed, while costs rose at a slower pace than in the previous three months. "While oil prices have not been low enough this quarter to force a substantial cutback in activity, they were not high enough to support any growth either," Dallas Fed assistant vice-president Michael Plante said. In its annual E&P spending survey, Barclays expects upstream capital expenditure in North America to fall by 5pc in 2026, on lower US activity, reduced reinvestment ratios, and the impact of drilling and well completion efficiencies. That would mark its third consecutive annual decline. Barclays also revised down this year's upstream spending forecast to a decline of 5pc, from an initial estimate of a 3pc drop. The change was driven by further US rig count losses after Opec+ started to ramp up supplies, as well as the hit from Trump's tariff wars. By Stephen Cunningham Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Viewpoint: Biogas growth uneven, shipping drives 2026

25/12/22

Viewpoint: Biogas growth uneven, shipping drives 2026

London, 22 December (Argus) — Europe's biomethane market faces uneven growth in 2026, with numerous unsolved policy hurdles and as adoption of the EU's revised renewable energy directive (RED III) reshapes national compliance frameworks. Shipping demand will remain a key driver, particularly for certified subsidised product. RED III's overall 2030 target gives EU member states the option to reduce greenhouse gases (GHGs) by 14.5pc, or reach a 29pc renewable energy share. RED II only required countries to reach a 14pc renewable energy share. Some states have already transposed RED III, including the Netherlands and Germany , and pivoted incentive schemes to reward fuels on a GHG reduction basis. This is setting up biomethane with low or negative carbon intensity (CI) as a fuel of choice for suppliers obligated to comply with the regulation in the Netherlands, where previously it lagged behind cheaper, energy-intense biofuels. Another EU regulation that favours biomethane use is FuelEU Maritime, which came into effect in January 2025 requiring shipowners to reduce fleet emissions by 2 pc/yr in 2025 and 2026. Over-compliance can be sold under pooling schemes — which have proven profitable for bio-LNG bunkering. The mandate became a major market price driver for renewable gas guarantees of origin (RGGOs) — certificates issued to companies producing gas made from non-fossil fuel sources — and this should continue into 2026. New schemes, either under RED III or domestic obligations, that will come into effect in 2026 will compete with maritime demand for supply. Most 2026 Dutch and Danish supply has already been sold to the maritime sector. Growing Netherlands As well as a pivot to GHG-based compliance with a new ERE ticket system under RED III, the Netherlands began work on a Green Gas Blending Obligation in November. While implementation before late 2027 seems unlikely, progress should boost RGGO forward pricing. Dutch biomethane liquidity could be bolstered if the government approves mass-balancing , a method to track and verify biomethane when it is injected into the gas grid system and becomes indistinguishable from conventional gas. A motion was proposed in parliament in November, but a recent government response indicates this is unlikely. Bio-LNG must be unsubsidised, certified and physically delivered to qualify for ERE tickets, otherwise it will be treated with a fossil gas CI of 94g CO2e/MJ when calculating a fuel supplier's overall mandate level. Steady Germany, France Germany will remove double-counting for waste-based biofuels under its GHG reduction quota (THG) in 2026, but biomethane should remain the cheapest compliance route for fuel suppliers, as rising mandates will support demand. Most German imports come from the UK or Denmark. The former may benefit from Danish prices inflated by maritime demand, despite questions about UK eligibility with German schemes. France's biogas production certificate (CPB) blending mandate starts in January, which should significantly boost domestic demand. But the country has delayed its RED III transposition , which includes a new GHG-based IRICC ticket system, to 2027. The current energy-based TIRUERT transport ticket system will remain in place for a year, limiting transport-sector uptake. It is unclear if IRICCs can be generated from biomethane in 2027, but 3pc renewable gas obligations for transport will start in 2028, increasing thereafter. Cross-border trade and bio-LNG bunkering should remain limited. French biomethane can only be exported as an ex-domain cancellation , the cancellation of RGGOs in one country's registry for use in a different country. This carries risk to buyers, as ownership is not necessarily transferred. Subsidised biomethane cannot be liquefied at French LNG terminals for use outside the country. French bio-LNG must be exported via mass-balancing to other terminals in the EU, for use under FuelEU Maritime. Uncertain UK The UK's access to EU markets hinges on access to the Union Database for gaseous Biofuels (UDB), now targeted for launch by end-summer 2026. Uncertainty about third-country treatment could restrict EU trade — a critical issue given the UK exported more than half its RGGOs in the first three quarters of 2025, mostly to Germany, Norway and Switzerland. The UK is consulting on replacing volume-based RTFC tickets with a GHG-based system, but any changes would not be enacted until 2027. Overall in Europe, biomethane remains well positioned in GHG-based systems, but policy implementation delays will probably slow overall market growth. The Netherlands, Denmark and Germany should remain anchors for European pricing, and Spain should consolidate its role as a maritime hub. But several countries risk lagging behind without RGGO registries, export hub access, policy incentives and subsidy reform. By Madeleine Jenkins Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Japan's Niigata assembly backs Tepco's nuclear return

25/12/22

Japan's Niigata assembly backs Tepco's nuclear return

Osaka, 22 December (Argus) — Japan's Niigata prefectural assembly has supported its prefectural governor's decision to approve the restart of the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear reactors operated by utility Tokyo Electric Power (Tepco). The assembly passed a vote of confidence on Niigata governor Hideyo Hanazumi on 22 December. He had sought the assembly's judgement on his plan to authorise the restart of the No.6 and No.7 reactors at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa, each with a capacity of 1,356MW. Hanazumi had previously indicated that he would step down if the motion was rejected. The motion was attached to a supplementary budget request of ¥31mn ($197,048) for the April 2025-March 2026 fiscal year, intended to support activities related to the restart of the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear plant. Hanazumi plans to meet Japan's trade and industry minister Ryosei Akazawa on 23 December to discuss the restart of the nuclear plant. The endorsement will allow Tepco to move towards restarting its reactors for the first time since they triggered the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear disaster, after a powerful earthquake and tsunami in March 2011. The plant, which has remained off line since March 2012, is Tepco's sole nuclear station, after it scrapped the damaged Fukushima Daiichi and nearby Fukushima Daini plants. The Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant comprises of seven reactors with a combined capacity of 8,212MW, of which the No.6 and No.7 units have cleared the stricter post-Fukushima safety inspections. Tepco has yet to file an application with the country's nuclear regulation authority (NRA) for screening of the five other reactors. The utility is also mulling scrapping the No.1 and No.2 reactors. Tepco is expected to prepare for the restart of the No.6 reactor first, given that the No.7 unit will be required to remain shut until August 2029 for the installation of anti-terrorism facilities. The No.6 reactor is expected to resume operations after clearing pre-use inspections, which typically last for three weeks to one month. This means that Tepco will be able to restart the No.6 reactor in January at the earliest. The return of the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant could be a milestone in Tepco's progress in nuclear power generation after the Fukushima disaster, with the No.6 unit marking Tepco's first reactor to be restarted after the disaster. Electricity from the nuclear plant will be sent to the Tokyo metropolitan area, with the nuclear plant — located in the Tohoku region — mitigating the risk of a power shortage in Japan's capital. A single nuclear reactor can produce 10 TWh/yr of electricity, and can save the company an estimated ¥100bn/yr, Tepco previously said. The return of the No.6 reactor is also expected to reduce CO2 emissions by around 3.3mn t/yr, it added. By Motoko Hasegawa Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. 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