Market Integration & SoSUpdated proposals for SJWS #6

ENTSOG offices – BrusselsStakeholder Joint Working Session – 26 April 2012

SJWS process on SoS & Market Integration

2

February session – Come-back to TYNDP 2011-2020> Establishment of a shared understanding of current report and associated feedback

March session – ENTSOG initial proposals> Proposals focus on selection of relevant cases for SoS & Mkt Int. assessment> Feedback on proposals and first considerations on indicators to be used

April session – ENTSOG updated proposals> Fine-tuned scenarios/cases and first set of indicators

May session – Fine-tuning of assessment methodology> Presentation of an integrated method (cases & indicators) fitting with other SJWSs

June TYNDP

2013-2022 Public WS

Feb. 15th

Mar.20th

April26th

May?

Security of Supply& UGS low deliverability

3

Security of Supply – potential events

4

List of extreme but still realistic events will be slightly updated> Considered list could be complemented at GRIP level for specific focus

Source Technical Transit Supply

Algeria 100% MEG& 100% Transmed separately

Caspia 100% (dealt within the FID case)

Libya 100% Green stream

LNG Expecting for update GLE study

Norway

100% Langeled & 100% other connection (worst case to be tested) or process plant (see

GASSCO) ?

Russia 100% Ukraine &100% Belarus separately

LNG management

Definition of the import and storage share> Supply part could be based on the historical curve not

considering the highest values (using a pipe profile instead of)

> The difference between the historical profile and the curve defined above could represent the storage part to be split between countries according the average autonomy-days (tank volume / send-out capacity) of their LNG terminals

LNG tank management> Required parameters to be used in the model:

• stock level to be considered prior to any event• the minimum level to be kept in stock

> Such data will be provided by the update GLE study

5

LNG as import

LNG as storage

Security of Supply – Event management

6

Management of disruption or low UGS deliverability cases> Supply priority is:

1. Disrupted supply through alternative routes2. Alternative imports (including LNG until maximum potential supply as import)3. LNG (using remaining capacity up to send-out capacity) and UGS4. Disruption

> Order does not influence the identification of gaps but provide transparency on the method and influence the resulting supply mix

Load factor of import routes> Model will be able to use different load factor for routes between a given supply

source and Europe> Nevertheless a minimum load factor will be defined for every route based on

historical data

Security of Supply – Low UGS

7

Minimum UGS deliverability at European level>UGS withdrawal rate at European level is defined by putting all imports at their Potential Supply level (disregarding LNG storage component)>Same UGS (and LNG storage component) load factor will be then used in every system (except for gas islands)

75% 75%

75% 75% 75%

75% 75%

Resulting information>Comparison of the minimum deliverability with the one observed in February last years>Identification of potential flow constraints preventing this even withdrawal rate>Such identification highlights the relative influence of UGS by countries but cannot be used to define investment gaps themselves as a higher withdraw rate is sufficient

Security of Supply – 2-week case

8

Definition of demand level on a 2-week period> For the 2-week period under Simultaneous Case, imports will be set at their potential

supply value> An additional modelling will be made with every disruption

Way to model

1. Supply/Demand balance on the last day defines the need of UGS deliverability

2. Modeling check potential gaps

3. Ex-post calculation defines the minimum UGS deliverability then level for the 6 previous days

Modeled day

Market Integration& Supply diversification

9

Predominant supply

10

Which benchmark ?> In comparison with Reference Case supply share

(full color), potential benchmarks are:• X% of import capacity (TYNDP 2011-2020 with

95% for pipe and 80% LNG)• Potential supply of the source• +Y% increase in comparison with Ref. Case

Guidelines> Cases/scenarios have to ensure that TYNDP cover

extreme but still realistic scenarios in order to provide a meaningful information to decision-maker

> Level of stress on infrastructures also depends on:• How are combined increased sources• the way other sources are decreased

Russia

Norway

LNG

Alternative supplies

11

Influence of each supply source will be considered separately

RU, AL, LY, CA, LNG -5%

NO +14% > Supply spread will differ depending on how each import point of alternative supplies will be decreased:• By the same percentage for every source and

route• By the same percentage for every source but

giving some flexibility by route • By the same percentage for every source and

complete flexibility by route (down to 0 – case of previous TYNDP)

> Under the supply minimization case, benchmark could be a decrease of the same extent that the increase, the alternative supplies being increased according above options (down to 0 being replaced by up to Potential Supply of the Source)

RU, AL, LY, CA, LNG + 5%

NO - 14%

Supply range proposal

12

Reference Case 3,800 4,230 5,263 Potential yearly supply 4,808 27% 5,322 27% 5,859 11%95% Import capacity 6,355 67% 7,915 67% 7,915 50%Lower benchmark 2,792 -27% 3,108 -27% 4,667 -11%Reference Case 3,000 3,339 3,750 Potential yearly supply 3,432 14% 3,607 8% 3,750 0%95% Import capacity 4,171 39% 4,425 33% 4,423 18%Lower benchmark 2,568 -14% 3,071 -8% 3,750 0%Reference Case 1,100 1,224 1,297 Potential yearly supply 1,203 9% 1,237 1% 1,297 0%95% Import capacity 1,624 48% 1,624 33% 1,624 25%Lower benchmark 997 -9% 1,211 -1% 1,297 0%Reference Case 300 310 327 Potential yearly supply 300 0% 310 0% 327 0%95% Import capacity 306 2% 332 7% 332 1%Lower benchmark 300 0% 310 0% 327 0%Reference Case 1,800 2,003 2,493 Potential yearly supply 3,140 74% 3,723 86% 4,600 85%80% Import capacity 4,420 146% 5,297 164% 5,430 118%Lower benchmark 460 -74% 284 -86% 386 -85%

Russia

Norway

Algeria

Libya

LNG

2011 FID 2015 FID 2020 FID

Maximization Minimization

Max source Potential supply Symmetric decrease

Max route Some flexibility to be defined or not

Min sources Same % at source level Up to Potential supply

Min route Some flexibility to be defined or not

TYNDP 2011-2020 figures

Physical supply spread

13

Uniform spread> Spread shape aims at reaching simultaneously a given

supply share threshold (X%) in a maximum number of systems

> It models a common reaction to a given stimulus and the ability to physically secure a sell agreement

Maximum reach> Spread shape aims at reaching alternatively a given supply

share threshold (X%) in a maximum number of systems> It requires several runs to capture maximum ranges (could

be based on the ability to replace alternative source one-by-one)

> It models the ability to physically secure a sell agreement for more remote countries than in the uniform spread (e.g. selling NO gas arriving in UK to the RO market)

Both types of spread will use the same source and route range as proposed in previous slide

NO +14%

NO +14%

Identification of physical limits

No gap identification> It would require both:

• A consensus on market integration definition and target• To balance cost and benefit of improvement

> Some contractual solution may mitigate the lack of supply diversification under business-as-usual conditions (not in case of crisis which are covered within the SoS section of TYNDP)

Identification of physical limits> Identification should rather derive from a lack of diversification of a given system

rather than from a limit to a source spread (e.g. what prevents HU to have a physical access to 20 % of NO gas, rather than what limit the ability to send more NO gas into Europe)

14

Indicators & Gap identification

15

Remaining flexibility & investment gaps

Remaining flexibility indicator> It is defined at 2 levels:

• Infrastructure:

• System level:

> Results are provided as ranges: <1% / 1-5% / 5-20% / >20%

Gap identification criteria> Under Reference Case (no disruption), gaps are identified when

a system has a R. Flex below 5%> In case of disruption, the criteria is decreased to 1% as part of

the R. Flex will have been used to face the event> Then congested infrastructure (or supply) are identified based

on their R. Flex> Potential remedies will be identified using the non-FID projects

provided by project promoters (without priority)16

Dependence to flow pattern

High

Medium

Supply diversification

17

Impacting supply share> The share of a given supply source able to induce a significant impact on prices> Should it be calculated in comparison with the total supply or the total imports ?> TYNDP 2011-2020 used mostly 5% (identifying also systems with more than 20%)> On map, supply shares should be represented with figures or ranges?

Supply diversification from a market perspective> Could be based on the uniform or maximum

spreads> Which is the minimum share of a given source

to be considered?> How to deal with LNG embedded diversification

(e.g. highlighting the presence of LNG)?> Is a benchmark (e.g. 3 sources required)?

Range of infrastructure use in the cases

Synthetic indicator can be derived from all simulations> Indicator can be defined for every system:

• At cross-border level• UGS aggregate• LNG aggregate

> Range would be defined base on the highest and lowest load factor of the 165+ simulations

18

> Actual use may be outside these ranges

> Robustness could be improved with a sensitivity study around each simulation modifying slightly the supply shares

Route diversification

19

ENtry Capacity Concentration index> As evolution of market shares is beyond the scope of TYNDP, analysis should focus

on how infrastructure can support market integration and SoS> Then based on the same logic than HHI but calculated on the share of an entry

capacity in the total entry (same can be done using the flows but index will then depend on flow pattern)

EXit Capacity Concentration index> Similar indicators may defined based on exit capacity in order to measure how a

system may support supply/route diversification> Result should be compared to the idealistic situation taking into account the

number of cross-borders

100% 40%

30%

20%

10%

ENCC=100²= 10 000

ENCC=40²+30²+20²+10²= 3000

As for all indicators, analysis is more robust when comparing situation of one country between 2 cases

Security of Supply & Market Integration proposed Cases

20

List of parameters for modelling

> Current proposal accounts for 165 cases (against 67 for TYNDP 2011-2020), one additional disruption would add 15 cases

Year Infra. Cluster

Demand CaseDuration Occurence

Disruption

UGS deliverability

Supply source mix

2013 FID 1 day Design Case None No use Reference

2017 Non-FID 2 weeks Simultaneous Case AL Not limited Crisis

2022 Year Average day LY -x% / Ref Case Min/max AL

BY Min/max LY

UA Min/max BY

NO Min/max UA

LNG Min/max NO

Min/max LNG

Microsoft Excel 97-2003 Worksheet

21

Thank You for Your AttentionOlivier Lebois, Adviser, System DevelopmentENTSOG -- European Network of Transmission System Operators for GasAvenue de Cortenbergh 100, B-1000 Brussels

EML: Olivier.Lebois@entsog.euT: + 32 2 894 5105WWW: www.entsog.eu