You are on page 1of 76

Prepared for the EU Commission DG TREN C1

Future Development of the Energy Gas Market in the Baltic Sea Region
Final Report

June 2009

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

Prepared for the EU Commission DG TREN C1

Future Development of the Energy Gas Market in the Baltic Sea Region
Final Report June 2009

Ramboll Oil & Gas Teknikerbyen 15 2830 Virum Denmark Phone +45 4598 6000 www.ramboll-oilgas.com
Rev. Date Made by Checked by Appr. by Description

2009-06-12 PEJ/SFK PEJ/SFK/ADM PEJ/SFK Final Report Ref 953106


Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

Table of contents

0. 1. 1.1 1.2 1.3 2. 2.1 2.2 2.2.1 2.2.2

Executive summary Introduction Baltic Energy Market Interconnection Plan this report The Amber project different definitions Nord Stream, Yamal-Europe II, Nabucco Conclusions and recommendations Status of conclusions and recommendations Market Issues No need for permanent derogation of Baltic gas markets Polish gas transmission pipeline Yamal-Europe should be opened for market access in normal and reverse flow directions and preferably integrated with Gaz-system network Integration of the gas networks in the East Baltic Sea countries (Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) will be an advantage for the market Establishment of uniform regulation in order to ensure investment incentives in region A time limit to 2014 should be used for the full opening of all markets and the establishment of new infrastructure Low gas end-user prices gives room for investment in market opeing and security of gas supply without jeopardizing social aspects Suspension of Skanled raises uncertainty about Norwegian gas supply to EU and in particular to the Baltic Sea region and opens for LNG Infrastructure Focus on market integration and security of supply East Baltic Sea bridging the gas islands to the integrated EU gas transmission system and securing alternative gas supply. Further investments in East Baltic Sea depends on the status of the YamalEurope pipeline with respect to reverse flow West Baltic Sea depletion of Danish field requires urgent action for new supply to Denmark and Sweden. LNG recommendations Interconnection of the East Baltic gas markets opens for development of large scale, strategic and commercial, underground gas storage in Latvia Financial crises and lower oil prices reduce cost and time of establishing gas network substantially Russian gas system development may impact the project usage in the longer term, but should not delay implementation of recommended projects Objectives and criteria Analysis of indigenous production/transmission/storage and LNG Gas demand around the Baltic Sea Indigenous production/transmission/storage/LNG capacities Norway is the main gas source in North-West Europe

1 4 4 5 5 6 6 6 6

7 8 8 8 9 9 10 10 10 11 12 13 14 14 14 14 15 15 17 18

2.2.3 2.2.4 2.2.5 2.2.6 2.2.7 2.3 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3 2.3.4 2.3.5 2.3.6 2.3.7 2.3.8

3. 4. 4.1 4.2 4.2.1

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

4.2.2 4.2.3 4.2.4 4.2.5 4.2.6 4.3 4.3.1 4.4 4.4.1 4.4.2 4.5 4.6 5. 5.1 5.2 5.2.1 5.2.2 5.2.3 5.2.4 5.2.5 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 6. 6.1 6.2 6.2.1 6.2.2 6.2.3 6.3 6.3.1 6.3.2 6.4 6.4.1 6.4.2 6.5 7. 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.3.1 7.3.2 7.3.3

Germany Poland Denmark The Netherlands The UK Gas transmission in the region Integration of gas networks in Germany Gas storage in the region Geological potential, existing and planned facilities Demand for storage capacity in the Baltic countries and Finland LNG around the Baltic Sea Conclusions on gas reserves and indigenous production Links of the three Baltic countries with the Gazprom system Overview over system Capacity assessment of normal operation 2009 Pipeline capacities Demand peaks during cold periods Supply-demand balance area 1 Supply-demand balance area 2 Supply-demand Finland Capacity assessment after Nord Stream in operation Summer operations of the Baltic gas system Latvian gas storage interrupted Belarus supply interrupted Russian supply interrupted Dispatching structure and decision making Identification of the benefits of the interconnections through the value of capacity Benefits of the interconnections whole sale prices net back value of gas Russian gas supply prices Gas import prices and contracts Netback prices in the Baltic countries and Finland Impact of decreasing transportation costs Gas retail prices Low retail prices compared to other EU member states Potential for market integration LNG prices EU LNG import prices LNG price in the Baltic Sea Conclusion on prices Main infrastructure gaps and bottlenecks Missing links Principles for interconnections around Baltic Sea Bottlenecks in the system Latvian/Lithuanian border Polish- German border - Reverse flow in Yamal-Europe pipeline Denmark-Germany

19 20 20 21 22 22 24 25 25 25 26 26 27 27 28 28 29 29 29 29 29 30 31 31 32 32

33 33 33 33 34 35 36 36 38 39 39 39 41 42 42 42 43 43 44 45

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

II

7.3.4 8. 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.3.1 8.3.2 8.3.3 8.3.4 8.4 8.5 9. 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.3.1 9.3.2 9.3.3 9.3.4 9.4 9.5 9.5.1 9.5.2 9.5.3 9.5.4 9.5.5 9.6 9.7 9.7.1 9.7.2

LNG storage Identification of pending questions preventing the implementation of an integrated energy market Derogations status and conditions Uniform regulation Security of supply Low security of supply Baltic Sea countries Security of supply costs in general Security of supply costs in the Baltic countries Security of supply costs in Denmark Improving market mechanisms and strengthening incentives Identification of possible market related actions Prioritisation of necessary interconnections, gas storages and LNG terminals Methodologies, suite of models and evaluations Baltic Sea projects are relatively small investments compared to major supply systems to EU List of project and project assessment SWOT Pipeline projects short to medium term SWOT Pipeline projects Long-term SWOT LNG projects SWOT Storage projects Pipelines versus LNG projects LNG assessment Small or large scale LNG Conclusions on LNG size Location of LNG LNG options traditional with storage or direct gasification on ship Gas storage versus pipelines and LNG Qualitative comparison of projects Quantitative comparison model Model description Conclusions on quantitative analysis

45

46 46 47 48 48 50 50 51 51 51

52 52 53 53 53 56 57 58 59 61 61 62 63 63 65 65 67 67 69

List of appendices

A.

[Appendix]

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

III

0.

Executive summary
The East Baltic Sea member states of Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are the only four member states which remain isolated from the present integrated EU gas transmission system. The gas demand in these member states, which can be considered as a separate gas island from the rest of Europe, is approximately 10 bcm per year. The isolation mentioned above is further aggravated by the East Baltic States and Polands continued reliance upon gas supplied from one source, Russian gas, which is supplied either directly from or via Belarus. Subsequently such states are afflicted by both low levels of diversification and security in their gas supplies. Considerable gas reserves are still available in Norway which is in close proximity to the Baltic states and Finland and has significant levels of resources available with 3000 bcm of remaining and a further 1900 bcm in undiscovered fields. This is the only long-term supplier in the region, other than Russia, as gas fields are rapidly being depleted in UK, The Netherlands, Denmark and Germany. However in the short-term these countries still have an active part to play in contributing to gas supply in the region. In addition to the above mentioned suppliers gas can also be supplied as LNG, as all member states are located with direct access to the Baltic Sea. Geological conditions for underground gas storage vary in the region with Finland, Estonia, Sweden and Norway having no suitable locations whilst there remains good conditions in Latvia, Germany, Poland, Denmark and possibly also in Lithuania. The most important gas storage in the region is Incukalns in Latvia. The pipeline system in the Baltic Sea region has historically been developed as two main systems with the West supplied by The Netherlands, Germany and North Sea resources, and the East supplied by Russia. The Yamal-Europe pipeline constitutes the main connection between the two systems but is only open from East to West. The lack of reverse flow possibility in this pipeline constitutes a major hindrance for market integration and security of supply. With the establishment of the Nord Stream pipeline there will be an even stronger connection between the overall systems, but this alone will not solve the issue of gas islands. The capacity from Russia to the East Baltic Sea market is adequate to meet todays demand, however such supply may only be achieved by use of the Incukalns gas storage and the balance is sensitive to disruption of supply from the storage or one of more pipelines from Russia. When Nord Stream is established the balance is dependent upon the supply from new Russian onshore pipelines, the development of the Shtokman gas field and furthermore how flexible the offtake to Nord Stream will be in view of the creation of connection to the large German market with numerous gas storages available. So far the end-user gas prices in the East Baltic Sea region have been lower than in the rest of EU, this is probably due to depreciated gas systems and their vicinity to

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

1/73

the main gas supplier, however there increasingly seems to be a tendency towards convergence of gas prices within the EU. In the West Baltic Sea area the depletion of gas fields in Denmark means that within a few years time there will be a lack of capacity to Denmark and Sweden, who both already have a low security of supply and diversification with only one pipeline. A considerable list of infrastructure projects has been presented in the region to improve diversification and security of gas supply. This includes numerous methods including pipelines, underground gas storage and LNG projects. These listed projects have been compared by their strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats as well as by a quantification of these aspects with a focus on the principal aim of the Baltic Energy Market Interconnection Plan which is to improve both diversification and security of supply by means of interconnection and providing alternative supply options. The list of projects and qualitative comparison is shown in the table below:

Baltic Gas Interconnector

InterTransGas (DE - PL)

Incukalns expansion

Amber PolLit (OS)

Latvia-Lithuania LNG Poland

Balticconnector

DK/SV - Latvia

Connect energy islands Lift Derogations Finland Latvia Lithuania Estonia Supply New supply to East Baltic New supply in general Access to gas exchange Diversification to region Security of Supply Short term technical Long term Transit possibility Finland Estonia Latvia Lithuania Poland Sweden Maturity Ownership to project Operational within 5 years Capacity Regional capacity Legend

Yes

Uncertain

Lithuania UGS

LNG Lithuania

Finngulf LNG

Amber PolLit

Dobele UGS

Mid Nordic

Baltic Pipe

Skanled

Deudan

NO-DK

Amber

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

2/73

Based on these analyses the following projects are recommended to be implemented within a time frame of 2014:
Table 1: Summary of recommended investments in the East Baltic Sea

Amber PolLit Balticconnector Base case investments Latvia to Lithuania (upgrade of crossborder capacity and internal systems) Latvia to Estonia (upgrade of cross-border capacity and internal systems) LNG terminal in Finland (alternatively Estonia) Additional investments only in case reverse flow in Yamal-Europe is not established InterTransGas and small local DE-PL pipelines LNG in Lithuania New gas storage in Latvia or Lithuania

Table 2: Summary of recommended investments in the West Baltic Sea

Strengthening of Germany-Denmark (Deudan) Strengthening of the Danish system to bring the gas to Sweden Polish LNG Norway-Denmark connection (could be a revival of Skanled, a North Sea connection or a direct pipeline from Karst in Norway to Denmark) Baltic Pipe/Intertransgas or Baltic Gas Interconnector

Base case investments

Due to a lack of data from feasibility studies a firm cost benefit analyses has not been carried out, additionally some of the measures to be ensured are not easily quantified from an economic viewpoint as their value may differ when seen from alternate stakeholders perspectives. With respect to LNG facilities there are considerable economies of scale and it is recommended to limit the number of facilities, furthermore it is recommended that potential locations for such projects are in the far end of the supply system for security of supply reasons. As the main objective of the plan is to connect the

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

3/73

aforementioned gas island to the integrated EU gas system, any pipeline connections should in general be established before or at the same time as LNG projects in order to avoid a cementation of the present situation and lack of diversification. Interconnection of the Baltic Sea region will open further long term investments and provide a more direct supply. It is also prudent to remember that the overall gas balance in the region is related to the development of the Russian gas system.

1.

Introduction
1.1 Baltic Energy Market Interconnection Plan this report
The Baltic Energy Market Interconnection Plan is one of the six priority areas identified by the EU Commission in the Second Strategic Energy Review as published in November of 2008. A High Level Group was set up and began to work on the issue from November 20 2008. One of the decisions was to establish a working group specifically for gas. The present report is based upon the input presented by members of the working group on gas, whilst the analyses, assessments and comparison models are made by Ramboll are partly based on the work carried out by Ramboll in 2008 for the study of TEN-E Priority Corridors for Energy Transmission. Methodology for the selection and accelerated implementation of projects of European interest in preparation of the forthcoming revision of the TEN-e guidelines. In the present report we have chosen to focus on short to medium term projects and actions, i.e. projects and actions, which can be implemented before 2014. We analyse the core of the problem with regard to the energy islands of the four Member States Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, i.e. the East Baltic Sea. Further we look at the West Baltic Sea and evaluate and analyse the demand for investments. The recent decision to suspend the Skanled project, in its current form, does not in any way affect the analysis, ranking or recommendations on the East Baltic Sea made in this report. The issues concerning the East Baltic Sea set up by the Second Strategic Energy Review of increasing security of supply and market integration are still highly relevant and the arguments are still valid. Due to the suspension of the Skanled, Ramboll has introduced a Norwegian-Danish (NO-DK) project to illustrate the general value of bringing Norwegian gas to Denmark, as well as the expansion of the pipeline connecting Germany and Denmark (Deudan). The Norwegian-Danish connection could be a revival of Skanled, a connection between the offshore fields e.g. Ekofisk-Harald or a direct line from Karst to Northern Jutland.

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

4/73

Ramboll has outlined a number of conclusions and recommendations based on the analyses of the present report, and the information obtained from the presentations to the Gas working group and e-mail dialog with individual members of the working group. However it has not been possible to present and discuss the findings with main stakeholders in the region, which apart from the ministries, gas companies and regulators of the member states around the Baltic Sea includes the main gas supplier Gazprom, the main transit country Belarus and the governments of Russia and Belarus. It is assumed that coordination with these stakeholders takes place in the forum of EU-Russia energy dialogue.

1.2

The Amber project different definitions

The Amber project was first defined as a pipeline between Poland and Lithuania in a study performed in 2002 by PGNIG, LD and DONG Energy. Since then the term Amber Pipeline has been used for different lay out of pipeline projects which connects the Lithuanian and Polish gas systems. Four different versions of the Amber project are included in this report: Amber is the major 30 BCM onshore import pipeline From Russia to Germany via the Baltic States and Poland Amber PolLit the 3 BCM interconnection between Lithuania and the Yamal-Europe pipeline in Poland Amber PolLit (OS) - is the connection between the Polish and Lithuanian gas system described in the Polish open season, capacity is 1.5 BCM from Lithuania to Poland and 0.6 BCM from Poland to Lithuania Amber Baltic - is a connection from North West Poland (with Baltic Pipe, LNG or InterTransGas as possible supply sources) along the Baltic coast to Gdansk area and further to Lithuania along the Kaliningrad border.

1.3

Nord Stream, Yamal-Europe II, Nabucco

Large scale gas import pipelines to EU, which do not directly affect the issue of energy islands in the Baltic Sea region are not included in the analysis. The Nord Stream project has filed the applications for approval and the lay-out is hence frozen to a direct pipeline from Russia to Germany. The Yamal-Europe II, if constructed, will not contribute to the connections of the energy islands. Nabucco together with a North-South pipeline in Eastern Europe could contribute to increased security of gas supply to Poland and Germany but would not solve the issue of energy islands.

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

5/73

2.

Conclusions and recommendations


2.1 Status of conclusions and recommendations
Ramboll has prepared a number of conclusions and recommendations based on the issues raised in Second Strategic Energy Review and in the Terms of Reference for the Baltic Energy Market Interconnection Plan and the working group on gas. The recommendations and conclusions have been divided into two main parts: market issues and infrastructure. This final report has been updated with the comments and contributions received from the HLG meeting on 18 May and from direct communication with members of the Gas Working Group as well as from the by correspondence with stakeholders. The recommendations and conclusions in this report have not been discussed with the major shareholders of the different projects outside the gas working group meetings.

2.2
2.2.1

Market Issues

No need for permanent derogation of Baltic gas markets In the working group meetings the Latvian Ministry of Economy presented the following conclusion: Latvia sees no possibilities how to diversify the sources of gas supply and as a result considers that the gas market of Baltic Sea region will remain isolated, dependent of one supplier. Ramboll does not agree with this viewpoint for the following reasons: Gas sources North Sea, Norwegian Sea, Barents Sea, Poland/Germany/The Netherlands are located relatively close to the East Baltic Sea. Furthermore there is a possibility for LNG import as all Baltic Sea member states are located at the sea. Supply of other sources of gas apart from Russian gas may therefore be supplied at reasonable cost. Convergence of wholesale gas prices in the EU has occurred in recent years and full implementation of the EU gas directive will create scope and incentive for investments and sourcing of additional gas supplies in the region. Only relatively small investments are needed to connect the East Baltic Sea region to the existing interconnected EU gas system. A typical interconnector or LNG plant will require approximately 300 MEUR or corresponding to a few percentages of the large scale investments seen elsewhere in the area and in the North Sea. Even a dedicated direct pipeline from Norwegian Sea or from Germany or Denmark to the East Baltic Sea could be established for less than 1 billion EUR, which when compared to the value of the existing gas system and other alternative energy supply sources are manageable.

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

6/73

Other corners of the EU have managed to open their markets with the use of interconnectors and LNG systems, even if the demand has been much smaller than seen in the Baltic Sea region. In the HLG meeting some delegates expressed the view that security of supply should be considered as more important than market issue for gas. We do not agree on this, as the size of the combined gas markets of the four isolated EU member states at present is more than 10 bcm, with an increasing trend leading to a likely size of 15 bcm in 2030. Also, in the four member states the size of the gas market is larger, measured in energy content, than the electricity market for which the market issue has been a high priority. 2.2.2 Polish gas transmission pipeline Yamal-Europe should be opened for market access in normal and reverse flow directions and preferably integrated with Gaz-system network The Yamal-Europe gas pipeline owned by EuRoPol Gaz is one of the most successful investments in the region. However the pipeline is still operated in a mode corresponding to the pre-accession of Poland and other Baltic Sea countries to the EU. Derogation has not been formally applied for by EuRoPol Gaz and in our opinion the pipeline should be used to serve the EU gas market, where there is a need for transport, even if this will require smaller extra investments in meter stations and new offtakes. Reverse flow can ensure security of supply to Poland and to a new PolandLithuania pipeline from the West in case of disruption of supply from Belarus or Ukraine. The uncertainty of the status of the pipeline makes it difficult to prioritise other projects in the region, as alternative supply sources can be dismissed as ineffective by the Yamal-Europe pipeline if opened. It should be considered to integrate the Yamal-Europe pipeline into the Gazsystem network in Poland, at least from a market point of view with a common network code and tariff system. The opening of the Yamal-Europe gas pipeline for reverse flow should be discussed with the main shareholders of EuropPolGas, Gazprom and PGNIG, and on a political level between EU and Russia. If the Yamal-Europe is opened for third party access and reverse flow, the proposed Baltic Pipe and InterTransGas may lose some of their importance. If this should be the case, then these investments could be used as an interconnector for balancing the Danish/Swedish gas market with the Polish and German markets.

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

7/73

2.2.3

Integration of the gas networks in the East Baltic Sea countries (Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) will be an advantage for the market With the unbundling of the gas systems in the aforementioned countries there is a risk for sub-optimisation and high cost due to the size of the systems. The tendency at present in other EU member states has been toward the creation of large entryexit systems of which some are cross-border. An integrated system will have a number of advantages for the market including but not limited to: Economics of scale will bring down cost for development of IT systems, network codes etc. Gas suppliers and shippers would have easier access to the system, as there would only be one entry-exit system A gas exchange and hereby transparent price information could be established as there would be more liquidity than in individual markets.

2.2.4

Establishment of uniform regulation in order to ensure investment incentives in region An integrated market would benefit from uniformity in the regulation of the transmission systems and commercially attractive conditions. It is recommended to: Ensuring a homogenous and common regulation regarding investments in gas infrastructure is prerequisite for all international projects in the region. Use ERGEG to play a coordinating role and use a common regulation in the East Baltic Sea area as a test project for cross-border regulation.

2.2.5

A time limit to 2014 should be used for the full opening of all markets and the establishment of new infrastructure The integration of the East Baltic Sea countries to other Baltic Sea countries has been discussed for 20 years or more, and in particular since the independence of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in 1991. The EU enlargement in 2004 and the implementation of the EU market conditions has added further incentive to avoid such energy islands being the prevailing condition. The EU gas market directive cannot be fully functioning before all member states are connected to the integrated system. For larger consumers and in particular power and fertilizer producers, this creates unclear competition situation with other member states. Experience from other corners of the EU shows that setting fixed timelines for EU support has created an incentive to make decisions and hereby implement projects.

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

8/73

The potential capacity shortage and the lack of security of supply in the energy islands call for fast integration of the energy island the EU gas market. 2.2.6 Low gas end-user prices gives room for investment in market opeing and security of gas supply without jeopardizing social aspects End user gas prices in the East Baltic Sea region are among the lowest in EU. Even when adjusted for GDP the prices are in the middle range. The low prices are mainly due to the age of the existing gas system, which has already been depreciated. Whereas investment in new pipeline for security of supply reasons may seem high when compared to the existing depreciated asset value, the investments will be reasonable as compared to replacement values. Also, the proposed investments are comparable to the investment carried out for security of supply and market reasons in the newly gasified EU member states. We therefore recommend that the regulation of gas transmission systems should allow for inclusion of interconnectors and LNG terminals in the asset base for the purpose of market opening and increase of security of supply. 2.2.7 Suspension of Skanled raises uncertainty about Norwegian gas supply to EU and in particular to the Baltic Sea region and opens for LNG The suspension of the Skanled project, in its present form, and the simultaneous downgrading of the official Norwegian gas production forecast from 125-140 bcm to 115-140 bcm, raises uncertainty about Norwegian willingness to supply gas to the Baltic Sea region. According to Gassco subsequent uncertainties related to timing of new field developments on the Norwegian Continental Shelf was one of the reasons for suspension of the Skanled. In view of the likely remaining gas resources of more than 5000 bcm, the downgrade of production forecast is a consequence of the economics of field development, including taxation, and the producers view on gas prices. The high transit cost for gas via Denmark (Energinet.dk system and DONG Energy offshore pipelines) may also be a hindrance for transportation of Norwegian gas to the Baltic Sea region. It should be considered if the tariff systems and regulation of them should allow for special incentives for such transit. Suspension of a project as Skanled may delay other projects due to uncertainty about the possible revival. We therefore recommend that a time limit should be put on the suspension, e.g. year, after which the project should either move forward or be abolished. As Norway is the only supplier in the region, apart from Russia, which in the longer term can supply gas to the Baltic Sea region there is consequently a need to ensure possibility for import of gas from sources outside the region, which means LNG.

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

9/73

2.3
2.3.1

Infrastructure

Focus on market integration and security of supply It is recommended that the main priority of projects and the focus of the EU should initially be on the East Baltic Sea area (Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania), which are currently not connected to the integrated EU gas system. Further focus should be on Poland which can act as a bridge to the other countries. Supply systems to Poland from Germany, Denmark or as LNG are necessary in order to bring gas from Poland further on to the East Baltic Sea Infrastructure in the West Baltic Sea is mainly necessary to compensate for the decline in the Danish gas reserves and hereby need for new gas sources to Denmark and Sweden. Sweden which currently only has one pipeline from Denmark and no storage is in a poor situation in terms of security of supply. Norway has the potential to increase its low, but rapidly increasing gas consumption if new infrastructure is established. This could also be used to balance the power and gas system.

2.3.2

East Baltic Sea bridging the gas islands to the integrated EU gas transmission system and securing alternative gas supply. In order to connect the two energy islands of the East Baltic Sea region, Finland and the connected system of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, the following base investments are recommended: The Amber PolLit pipeline with connection to the Yamal-Europe pipeline (330 km capacity, at least 3 bcm/year) The Balticconnector (100 km, capacity at least 2 bcm/year) Latvian to Lithuania upgrade of cross border capacity and internal systems

Latvia Estonia upgrade of cross border capacity and internal systems


An LNG terminal in Finland

This package of investment is considered as the base package of investments, which should be carried out in the short term, before 2014, in order to create market opening and increase security of gas supply. The investment cost of this base package is in the order of 1000 MEUR. However, some of the projects, like the LNG in Finland, still require feasibility studies to be carried out. In case such studies show that a location in Finland is not the most optimal, then a location in Estonia or increased focus on underground gas storage are alternatives. Pipeline projects should be established before the LNG and storage projects in order to avoid cementation of the countries as energy islands.

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

10/73

By creating an interconnected East Baltic Sea gas market the doors is opened for creating a liquid gas market, which could attract commercial investments in underground gas storage and potentially also in more direct pipeline connections.
Table 2 Summary of recommended investments in the East Baltic Sea

Amber PolLit Balticconnector Base case investments Latvia to Lithuania (upgrade of crossborder capacity and internal systems) Latvia to Estonia (upgrade of cross-border capacity and internal systems) LNG terminal in Finland (alternatively Estonia) Additional investments only in case reverse flow in Yamal-Europe is not established InterTransGas and small local DE-PL pipelines LNG in Lithuania New gas storage in Latvia or Lithuania

2.3.3

Further investments in East Baltic Sea depends on the status of the YamalEurope pipeline with respect to reverse flow If the Yamal-Europe pipeline is opened for reverse flow then there will potentially be many new gas suppliers who could sell gas to the region on a contractual level thus opening the Baltic market for new gas suppliers. This does however require that Lithuania and Poland are connected as included in the base package. Furthermore physically, gas from the North Sea, Germany, The Netherlands etc. could be available in the event of a disruption of supplies from the East towards EU, as was the case for South-East Europe during the latest Ukrainian gas crisis when gas flowed from West to East in Europe. If Yamal-Europe is not opened for reverse flow there will be a need for gas alternatives from other sources to ensure security of supply for the East Baltic Sea region, this could be in LNG form or long direct pipelines. If Yamal-Europe cannot be opened for reverse flow there will be a larger need for investments in the region, as it will be necessary to import gas from further away. There will hence be a need for investment in a new pipeline from Germany to Poland. InterTransGas from Germany to Poland and small local DE-PL pipelines

Due to the limited capacity of the national Polish gas system, there will be a need to further increase LNG import and underground gas storage capacity for security of gas supply and market opening, in particular for the Lithuanian market:

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

11/73

LNG in Lithuania New gas storage in Latvia or Lithuania

The extra investments necessary in case reverse flow in Yamal-Europe pipeline is not ensured will be in the order of 1000 MEUR. And eventually in order to ensure supply of gas from new sources in the longer term there will be an advantage of more direct pipeline connections to the East Baltic Sea region: 2.3.4 Polish connection from Baltic Pipe to the Lithuania (Amber Baltic) Copenhagen/South Sweden Latvia or Lithuania, or Mid Nordic Gas Grid with gas supply from Norwegian Sea fields

West Baltic Sea depletion of Danish field requires urgent action for new supply to Denmark and Sweden. Depletion of the Danish gas fields threatens to create a new gas island of Denmark and Sweden. So far it was assumed that Skanled should be used to connect these markets to the gas reserves in Norway and the integrated Norwegian gas transmission system in Karst. In view of the suspension of the Skanled project, in its current form, the focus of the West Baltic Sea will naturally be on alternatives for supplying additional gas to Poland, Denmark and Sweden in line with depletion of the Danish gas reserves. The most obvious gas supply sources to Denmark and Sweden will be gas from Russia via Nord Stream or Yamal-Europe pipeline. Gas to Poland could be from various sources via Germany and LNG import from sources outside the region. This will require the following investments: Strengthening of Germany-Denmark (Deudan) Strengthening of the Danish system to bring the gas to Sweden Polish LNG

Norway-Denmark connection (could be a revival of Skanled, a North Sea connection or a direct pipeline from Karst in Norway to Denmark) The overall investment level for these investments is approximately 1000 MEUR. Further an eastern connection to Denmark/Sweden is recommended mainly to improve security of gas supply in Sweden and to diversify supply to Denmark, Sweden and Poland, which could either be:

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

12/73

Baltic Pipe with increased focus on using the pipeline for transportation of gas from Poland to Denmark/Sweden together with InterTransGas; or

Baltic Gas Interconnector, which can be used to bring gas from the Nord Stream pipeline to Denmark/Sweden. Different options exist for combining these projects, and new may be developed in an optimisation effort. It is recommended that Sweden, Germany, Denmark and Poland create a special task force to optimise the solution. Such work should not delay implementation of the other projects mentioned. With the suspension of the Skanled project, in its current form, there is a need to make long term planning of the gas supply to Denmark and Sweden. This could involve previous projects analysed during the last decades.
Table 3 Summary of recommended investments in the West Baltic Sea

Strengthening of Germany-Denmark (Deudan) Base case investments Strengthening of Danish system to bring gas to Sweden Polish LNG Norway-Denmark connection Possible additional investments to strengthen security of supply in Sweden, Poland and Denmark Baltic Pipe InterTransGas Baltic Gas Interconnector

2.3.5

LNG recommendations In terms of investments in LNG facilities the following overall recommendations apply for investments in LNG terminals. LNG facilities should include LNG storage facilities to meet peak demand and short term supply disruptions. The relative small gas markets in Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania do not generate scope for more than one LNG terminal. It is important to ensure the largest market possible for any LNG terminal in order to ensure economic viability and utilisation of the LNG terminal.

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

13/73

2.3.6

Interconnection of the East Baltic gas markets opens for development of large scale, strategic and commercial, underground gas storage in Latvia The particularly good geological conditions for underground gas storage in Latvia, with possibility for billions of m3 gas storage, can at present not be utilised within the EU due to lack of interconnection. With establishment of interconnections to Poland it will be possible to utilise the storage potential for the entire Baltic Sea region. With development of large scale underground storage it may be possible to load LNG directly into storage and hereby avoid the establishment of costly LNG storage facilities. In the longer term regarding the development of gas fields in the Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea there may be a need for low cost large scale storage in the region.

2.3.7

Financial crises and lower oil prices reduce cost and time of establishing gas network substantially The financial crisis and the fall in oil and gas prices has resulted in a much lower level of activity in the upstream oil and gas sector. This has in turn contributed to lower cost and lower delivery time for steel, construction work, compressors etc. Further, short and long term interest rates have been reduced further contributing to lower overall cost. However, the financial crisis has also made it more difficult to secure financing via banks in particular for countries with large deficits. Russian gas system development may impact the project usage in the longer term, but should not delay implementation of recommended projects Gas infrastructure developments in Russia and Belarus may impact the use of the gas system in the Baltic Sea Region. This includes establishing new capacity for the Nord Stream project, including the Shtokman field, but also re-opening of the direct pipeline between Estonia and St. Petersburg, increased capacity to Latvia and new gas storage in Russia and Belarus. We also recommend that the overall development of the gas infrastructure in the region should be analysed and discussed with the Russian partners on EU level, but such optimisation should not delay the projects and market initiatives recommended above.

2.3.8

3.

Objectives and criteria


The terms of reference for the working group on gas, states the following objectives for the working group:

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

14/73

The long term underlying objective is to introduce and promote internal market objectives and create any necessary infrastructure in the Baltic Sea Region to enable a proper and full functioning of an integrated internal energy market and strengthen security of supply through diversification of sources and routes. For this purpose, the tasks of this group include: Assessment of the gas market in the Baltic Sea Region in terms of market opening and third party access, as well as infrastructure related issues, including the assessment of any difficult projects Identification of the necessary market related actions Identification of any necessary investments in existing infrastructure Identification of the necessary interconnections, gas storage or LNG terminals Assign roles and responsibilities

The following sections assess the need for new investments around the Baltic Sea and will evaluate which projects are best able to ensure an integrated internal gas market as well as strengthen security of supply in the region. This assessment is divided into two main parts: Market issues and Infrastructure.

4.

Analysis of indigenous production/transmission/storage and LNG


4.1 Gas demand around the Baltic Sea
Overall gas demand in the EU Member states around the Baltic Sea is around 115 bcm/year, with the majority of demand emanating from Germany. Considerable demand is also shown from the North-West Russian region with more than 10 bcm/year. The demand in the four East Baltic Sea member states which are presently isolated from the integrated EU gas system is approx. 10 bcm/year and this amount is likely to increase slowly in the coming years. Historical as well as future gas demand in the four East Baltic countries is shown in the figure below.

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

15/73

Figure 1 Gas consumption in the Baltic countries and Finland

Finland

Estonia

Latvia

Lithuania

0 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030

Source: European energy and transport trends to 2030, update 2007

After the collapse of the Soviet Union gas consumption in the former Soviet republics Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia declined sharply, but has somewhat increased in recent years. Gas consumption is projected to continue to increase at a low growth rate. In Finland there has been a considerable increase in gas consumption up to around year 2000 followed by a smaller growth in gas consumption. Growth in gas consumption is projected to continue at a relatively low rate, with a possible decline from 2020. The main uncertainty of gas demand in the Baltic counties is the share to be used for power production. Gas consumption for power generation is in competition with new and existing nuclear power plants as well as wind power. Further the use of gas for non-energy purpose in fertilizer and petrochemical industries also plays a vital role in terms of its demand. Thus the issue of gas consumption is dependent on two main issues, firstly politically in terms of government policy regarding Nuclear and wind power and secondly in the level of gas prices. In Poland gas consumption is around 15 bcm/year and is foreseen to increase to 20 bcm in 2030. However, there is large uncertainty in this forecast due to the high penetration of coal, which has an upper limit for production, the possible use of nuclear power and renewable energy and not least the economic growth. As the country has a very low gas penetration there is a considerable upside potential for gas use. In Sweden, which today has a gas demand of less than 1 bcm/year, there is likely to be an increase in gas consumption due to the commissioning of new gas fired power plants and possible use for the petrochemical industry.

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

16/73

In Denmark the gas consumption, which at present is 4 bcm/year is likely to decline with up to 20 percent according to new forecasts from the Danish Energy Authority due to increased production of renewable energy and energy savings. In Norway there has been a rapid increase in indigenous gas consumption in recent years, although at a very low level. However the development shows that the demand for gas exists when infrastructure has been established. In Germany, the second largest consumer of natural gas in the EU, the increase in gas consumption has peaked and consumption declined by approximately 5 % in 2007 to 86 bcm, bringing gas consumption to the level of the early 2000s.

4.2

Indigenous production/transmission/storage/LNG capacities

The Baltic Sea region is close to gas fields in Siberia, North Sea, Norwegian Sea, Barents Sea, Germany and Poland. No major gas finds have so far been made in the region itself.
Figure 2 The Baltic Sea and gas resources

Russia has the largest gas reserves of more than 45000 bcm. Seen from a security of supply point of view in the Baltic Sea region and a diversification point of view, the more interesting gas reserves are the ones outside Russia and in the Barents Sea part of Russia. The North-West European gas reserves are indicated on the chart below

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

17/73

Figure 3 North-western gas reserves


North West European Gas Reserves 2008
-4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 Norway UK Netherlands Germany Denmark *Poland Produced Reserves and resources in producing fields and new discoveries Ressources in future discoveries 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Source: National authorities

The largest part of the gas reserves has already been produced in The Netherlands, UK and Germany. The smaller producers, Denmark and Poland still have some gas reserves, but the main gas reserves in the region are in Norway. 4.2.1 Norway is the main gas source in North-West Europe The Remaining resources in existing finds exceeds 3000 bcm and a further 1900 bcm is assumed to be existing in undiscovered fields.

Figure 4 Norwegian gas resources

Source: NPD

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

18/73

Norwegian gas sales are foreseen to reach a level of between 115 and 140 bcm during the next decade. This corresponds to a lifetime of more than 50 years for the gas resources given the reserves available.
Figure 5 Norwegian gas sales

Source: NPD

New gas finds are most likely to be made in the Norwegian and Barents Sea, which physically is closer to the Baltic Sea region than the North Sea fields. This was the background for the Mid Nordic Gas pipeline, which had the purpose of bringing gas from the Haltenbanken to Finland. No work has been made on the Mid Nordic Gas pipeline during the last five years. It should however be noted that close geographical vicinity is only one parameter in terms of assessing project feasibility, factors such as costs and market size also affect the viability of a project. 4.2.2 Germany The German gas reserves have been declining rapidly since the year 2000.

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

19/73

Figure 6 German gas reserves

Source: ERDL ERDGAS KOHLE 124. Jg. 2008, Heft 7/8

It is unlikely that major new gas finds will be made. The production level has been declined from approx. 20 to 16 bcm per year. This is however still a considerable production corresponding to almost double of the yearly consumption in the four East Baltic countries not yet connected to the integrated EU gas system. The depleted German gas fields offer an excellent opportunity to large scale gas storage. 4.2.3 Poland The Polish gas reserves are calculated at around 110 bcm. The yearly production is around 4.3 bcm which gives a fairly healthy R/P ratio of more than 25 years. New production fields are being planned and new exploration activities take place. It is foreseen that the yearly production could increase to 5.2 bcm/year. 4.2.4 Denmark The Danish gas reserves are valued at around 100 bcm today. Gas production is expected to decrease in the coming years from around 9 BCM in 2008 to being depleted in around 2030. However new gas findings are still possible in the Danish part of the North Sea. With the expected fall in gas production currently in line with the depletion of gas fields, Denmark will become a net-importer of gas within the next decade, but with the risk of this to happen earlier if no new investment decisions for smaller gas fields are taken very soon. The depleted Danish gas fields could eventually be used for large scale storage in combination with gas pipelines from Norway.

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

20/73

Figure 7: Gas production in Denmark BCM per year

Source: Danish Energy Authority

4.2.5

The Netherlands The remaining gas reserves in The Netherlands are around 1400 bcm of natural gas. Gas production in The Netherlands is regulated in order to stretch gas reserves and to maximise the small field production in the Netherlands. This is done imposing an upper limit to the production from the large Groningen field. Gas production in 2007 was around 65 bcm, but the potential production is more than 80 bcm. This leaves a considerable flexibility, which is of interest for the Baltic Sea Region in case of supply reductions from Russia or other sources or in case of exceptional cold temperatures and high demand.
Figure 8 Gas production profile for The Netherlands

Source: TNO (National Geological Survey)

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

21/73

4.2.6

The UK The remaining gas reserves in the UK are approximately 1000 bcm and production is around 70 bcm per year, which is expected to decline rapidly in the coming years. A number of LNG plants are planned to be constructed in the UK for import of natural gas within the coming years. Major investments in new gas storage facilities in the UK are also planned. More than 20 bcm of gas storage capacity is currently planned in the UK, which is around four times as much storage capacity as is currently available in the UK. 1
Figure 9 Gas production and demand profile for the UK
2000 Historic Remaining Reserves (bcm) . 1600 Forecast 100 80 1200 60 800 40 400 20 0 2018 Demand / Net Production (bcm) 120

0 1998 Proven

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

Probable NTS Demand inc Exports

Possible

Net Production Range

Source: National grid

4.3

Gas transmission in the region

The gas transmission system in the region is shown in the map below.

Source: Gas Storage Europe (GSE)

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

22/73

Figure 10 Gas transmission in and around the Baltic Sea

Source: Gas Infrastructure Europe (GIE)

Historically the network has been established as two systems from respectively West and East. This is reflected in restrictions in the flow directions in some of the main pipelines in the area, like EuRoPol Gaz, which currently only allows for transportation of gas from East to West. The interconnectors and the capacities of the linkages between the countries are shown in the following matrix.
Table 4 Pipeline linkages and capacities in and around the Baltic Sea (mcm/day)

Lithuania

Germany

Denmark

Sweden
MN 9 6

From / to

8 MN 4 120 Existing BEMIP Speculative Source: Gas transmission Europe (GTE) and infomation from TSOs
DK-LV

Russia Finland Estonia Latvia Lithuania Belarus Poland Germany Denmark Sweden Norway

19 NO NO NO 7 NO NO 10

5 10 7

20 NO

NO

250?

165

5(10) 5(10) 30 3 NO 9 9 NO 6 130 72

DK-LV

7 2 30 NO 13 2

NO NO NO

12 Nord Stream

Using existing infrastructure via Syd Arne, can be increased considerable by new investments

Norway 23/73

Belarus

Estonia

Finland

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

Poland

Russia

Latvia

4.3.1

Integration of gas networks in Germany In Germany, the gas transmission system is not one system, but consists of several different zones or smaller networks. Work is ongoing to establish a common northern integrated system in Germany. The new integrated system will connect 6 countries (Poland, the Czech Republic, Denmark, the Netherlands and Belgium) as well as it will connect Russian and Norwegian gas imports. Further the integrated new German network zone will allow gas suppliers easy access to a large market area and thereby increase competition in not only in Germany but in the Northwest European gas market. This will allow an easy transportation of gas from Denmark and The Netherlands and also from German gas storages to the Polish border. This creates further scope for allowing a pipeline, specifically the Yamal-Europe pipeline, for reverse flow i.e. transportation of gas from West to East. In addition to the system mentioned above, NetConnect Germany, the cooperation of E.ON Gastransport and Bayernets, also covers a large part of Germany, including entry- and exit-points and connections to huge storages as well. The most eastern part of the grid is close to the Polish border in Kienbaum, so that the grid covers the starting point (Brnicke) of the proposed pipeline from Germany to Poland (InterTransGas).

Figure 11 Map of the integrated German systems

Source: http://www.wingas-transport.de and www.net-connect-germany.de

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

24/73

Thus, these two market areas in Germany are capable of supplying additional Gas from German storages, Norwegian sources, LNG-terminals in the Netherlands and Belgium or Western European trading points to the Baltic States via Poland.

4.4
4.4.1

Gas storage in the region

Geological potential, existing and planned facilities Physically, gas storage possibilities exist in Latvia, Poland, Germany, Denmark, Belarus and Russia, and are also likely to exist also in Lithuania. In Finland, Estonia, Sweden and Norway no possibilities exist for natural gas storage as depleted gas fields, aquifers or salt caverns. The geological conditions for gas storage are seen to be particularly good in Latvia where a storage potential of several bcm working gas has been identified.
Table 5 Gas storage around the Baltic Sea (bcm)

Geological potential Finland Estonia Latvia Lithuania Poland Germany Denmark Sweden Norway Belarus Russia 0 0 5+ ? ? ? 3+ (plus offshore) 0 0, possibly offshore -

Existing storage 0 0 2 0 2 20 1 0 0 -

Planned storage 0 0 1 1 4 8 1 0 0 -

4.4.2

Demand for storage capacity in the Baltic countries and Finland Demand for storage capacity is determined by three factors: temperature dependency, flexibility of imports and flexibility of indigenous production. As the Baltic countries rely completely on imports, they only have two means to ensure the flexibility they need and since the only storage available is the Incukalns facility in Latvia, the Baltic countries are very dependent on imports for not only supplies of gas, but also the flexibility they require. Based on the level of consumption and the temperature dependency of consumption, the demand for flexibility has been calculated for the Baltic countries and Finland.

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

25/73

The demand for seasonal adjustment is approximately 2600 MCM 3. The flexibility is supplied via the Incukalns storage and flexibility in import volumes. Finland who has no direct access to storage, is in principle importing all its flexibility from Russia, however as Russia relies on the Incukalns storage for flexibility in winter, Finland is indirectly also supplied by the Incukalns facility. With the expected increases in gas consumption, see Figure 1, the requirement for flexibility will increase to approximately 3900 MCM, main increase in demand will be in Lithuania and Latvia, due to the fact that this is where the largest increase in consumption is forecast 4. The increase in demand for storage can either be met by flexible imports, new storage facilities or expansion of existing storage. Flexibility in imports could also, to some extent be provided by LNG imports. Further access to storage is crucial for new players in the market, thus the requirement for additional storage is not only important in order to ensure seasonal balancing but also in terms of securing a level playing filed for competition.

4.5

LNG around the Baltic Sea

So far no LNG import facilities exist in the region. A small LNG receiving terminal is under construction in Sweden, but will initially not be connected to the integrated gas network. However there are several plans for LNG receiving terminals with the Polish terminal in Swinoujscie being the most advanced, with an ongoing FEED study and signing of a Head of Agreement for gas purchase from Qatar. LNG supply to the region could come from such major suppliers like Qatar, Nigeria or Barents Sea by use of large LNG vessels with a capacity up to 200.000 m3. However, for smaller LNG terminals it is also possible to reload LNG at existing terminals in Western Europe and use smaller vessels with a size of less than 50.000 m3.

4.6

Conclusions on gas reserves and indigenous production

The following conclusions can be made on reserves and indigenous production: Only Norway has any long term reserves in the region and new production capacity is most likely to come from the Norwegian and Barents Sea, which is relatively closer to the Baltic Sea region than the present North Sea production is.

3 This means the amount of additional gas in winter time compared to summer i.e. the storage capacity required, calculations have been made using the Ramboll Storage model for (seasonal) storage demand. 4 Consumption forecast data, source: European energy and transport trends to 2030 update 2007

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

26/73

Reserves and production are declining rapidly in Germany and Denmark, creating the background for new infrastructure to these countries and to Sweden, which in turn can be combined with infrastructure to the Baltic Sea countries. The Netherlands still has considerable reserves and in particular production flexibility, which could be used to supply the Baltic Sea countries in case of short to medium-term supply disruptions from Russia. UK reserves and production are declining rapidly and being replaced by new pipeline import from Norway, interconnection to The Netherlands and additional LNG import capacity, combined with considerable planned investments in gas storage. Due to the depletion of gas reserves the entire North European gas market should be seen as one market, which emphasis the need for connecting energy islands and removing barriers for east-west transmission
Figure 12 North European gas market region

Source: Ramboll

5.

Links of the three Baltic countries with the Gazprom system


5.1 Overview over system
The major part of the gas infrastructure in Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania was established before the break up of the Soviet Union and before the four countries became members of the EU.

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

27/73

Figure 13 Baltic countries and Finlands gas transmission system

Area 2
Not in operation

Russia III Russia II Russia I

Area 1
Belarus pipeline

Not in operation

The capacity to the East Baltic Sea region is considered an evaluated for two main areas. Area one constituting of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Kaliningrad and area two which additionally includes Finland and St. Petersburg. Finland is to be considered a separate supply area as long as the country is only supplied from Russia.

5.2
5.2.1

Capacity assessment of normal operation 2009

Pipeline capacities For area one there are only two operational pipelines, from Belarus to Lithuania (with a capacity of 30 mcm/day) and from Russia to Latvia and Estonia (with a capacity of 30 mcm/day of which 20 mcm/day to Latvia). However, during winter the capacity of the pipeline to Russia is not available, as the pipeline is used for export of gas from Incukalns to Northwest Russia. Smaller older pipelines from St.Petersburg to Estonia and from Belarus to Lithuania are not in use at present but could possibly be reactivated. For area 2, there are two additional pipeline systems from Russia (with capacities of respectively 40 and 80 mcm/day). The delivery capacity of the Incukalns gas storage is approximately 24 mcm/day of which the lions share, approximately two third is allocated for Russia and only 8 mcm/day for Latvia and the other Baltic countries. The Russian gas storage in NW Russia Nevskoye/Gatchinskoy is excluded from the present balance due to lack of information.

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

28/73

5.2.2

Demand peaks during cold periods The maximum daily demand in the three Baltic countries plus Kaliningrad is estimated to be 40 mcm/day, with an additional 20 mcm/day for Finland. The maximum daily demand in NW Russia is estimated to be 100 mcm/day. Supply-demand balance area 1 For Area 1 winter balance of supply and demand constitutes of a total supply of 30 mcm/day from Belarus, plus 8 mcm/day from the Incukalns gas storage i.e. a total of 38 mcm/day. Peak demand is around 40 mcm/day which means that supply and demand are barely in balance, there is actually a small supply deficit. This means that there is a security of supply issue during cold snaps and highlights the need for one or more of the following actions: Allocation of a larger part of the present Incukalns gas storage to the Baltic countries Establishment of new pipeline connections (or revitalising the two pipelines not in use) Establishing LNG supply facilities

5.2.3

5.2.4

Supply-demand balance area 2 For area 2 the balance during winter, before implementation of Nord Stream, is on the supply side that we have three pipelines with a total capacity of 150 mcm/day plus the gas storage in Incukalns of 24 mcm/day, in total 174 mcm/day. Peak demand is 40 mcm/day in the Baltic countries, plus 20 mcm/day in Finland and another 100 mcm/day in Northwest Russia, in total this is 160 mcm/day. This means that there is a capacity surplus of around 15 mcm/day, assuming that all pipelines and the gas storage are working. It seems as if the overall supply situation for area 2 is slightly better than for area 1, which highlights the advantage of full integration and smoothening of demand peaks.

5.2.5

Supply-demand Finland For the Finnish supply area the supply capacity is 225 GWh/day (22.5 mcm/day) and the peak day consumption in a cold winter is 216 GWh/day (21.6 mcm/day). There is hence no spare capacity and new supply sources seem necessary in order to meet the foreseen increase in demand in the coming years.

5.3

Capacity assessment after Nord Stream in operation

To supply the Nord Stream pipeline a new 56, 100 bar pipeline is being installed with a capacity of around [100] mcm/day. Further, a new pipeline from the Shtokman field is planned with a capacity of [100] mcm/day. However, the yearly production of the Shtokman field in the first phases is only foreseen to be around 13 bcm/year which corresponds to around 40 mcm/day.

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

29/73

The maximum demand from Nord Stream will be approximately 85 mcm/day for each pipeline, in total 170 mcm/day. If the Shtokman gas pipeline is in place at the same time as the second Nord Stream pipeline, there may be a slight reduction in the supply balance of area 2 of 30 mcm/day. If the Shtokman gas field and pipeline is not in operation at the time of the Nord Stream implementation, there may be a reduction in the balance of up to 70 mcm/day, compared to the previous surplus of 15 mcm/day today. On the other hand, the large flow into Nord Stream also leaves flexibility and the possibility for smoothening demand between the Baltic countries and Germany via the Nord Steam pipelines, by a reduction of the flow to Germany during periods with cold temperatures. This will however depend on how the market operation of the Nord Stream pipeline will work and the priorities of the shippers using the pipelines. In conclusion the need for new supply capacity to the Baltic and North West Russian region will depend on the following factors, which are outside the scope of the present study: Will the Shtokman gas field be in operation in line with Nord Stream?

How will the shippers of the Nord Stream use the system? Will there be flexibility with respect to reduction in flow (corresponding to reverse flow) New storage facilities in Russia Development in gas demand in NW-Russia, in particular peak demand

5.4

Summer operations of the Baltic gas system

The gas supply system to Latvia is unique as gas is only supplied during summer. The injection capacity of the Incukalns gas storage will hereby become an important factor for the operation of the entire gas system in the region as an increase in the storage injection capacity may be needed to upgrade of the internal system. At present the injection capacity of Incukalns is 12 mcm/day. Gas is supplied via pipeline from Russia with a capacity of 20 mcm/day. Further gas can be supplied via Lithuania, who has increased the capacity with the commissioning of a new compressor station to 5 mcm/day. A further increase to 10 mcm/day is possible. If the Balticconnector is established there will further be a possibility for supply of gas to or from Finland.

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

30/73

5.5

Latvian gas storage interrupted

In case the Incukalns gas storage is interrupted a total of 8 mcm/day will be missing in the Baltic countries (Area 1). However, the impact may further spread to Russia and hereby indirectly to Finland and/or Poland as they are supplied indirectly from Incukalns via Russia. The impact corresponds to: A 20% reduction of the supply to Baltic countries, area 1. A 15% reduction of the supply to the larger area 2

Historical examples as the UK gas storage Rough fire during the winter 2005/2006, have shown the severe impact on the market an interruption of supplies may have. Establishing a new gas storage facility or parallel surface facilities on the Incukalns gas storage could reduce the risk which only having one storage facility imposes on the supply in the region. Better integration of the Baltic area with the rest of the EU integrated gas system could reduce the impact of a supply interruption. For the larger area, Nord Stream is the most obvious instrument which could simply just lower the flow in order to increase the available gas in the Baltic region (Area 1). For the Baltic countries a connection to Poland would open for smothering of impact over a larger market as some of the Polish gas storage could replace the Incukalns capacity.

5.6

Belarus supply interrupted

In February 2004 the gas supply from Belarus to Lithuania was interrupted. Also, Poland and Germany the impact of the disruption was felt. The impact was severe in the Baltic countries, but could to some extent be countered by opening of gas supplies from Latvia to Lithuania. Depending on the duration of a disruption from Belarus the impact would differ. With an import capacity of 30 mcm/day to Lithuania and 100 mcm/day to Poland, of which most is in transit for Germany, the impact could be severe and could not be covered by the present system. Some redirection of gas from Latvia to Lithuania and Kaliningrad is possible, but the present capacity of the pipeline, between the two countries is only 5 mcm/day5, although physically the capacity may be higher. The most obvious solutions to increasing security of supply and to reduce the impact would be to:

Source: GTE

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

31/73

Allow for reverse flow in the Yamal-Europe pipeline, in combination with a Lithuania-Poland pipeline Increase capacity from Latvia to Lithuania Establishing the Lithuania-Poland pipeline LNG in Lithuania

5.7

Russian supply interrupted

The most serious threat to security of gas supply for the Baltic region would be a full or partial disruption of Russian gas supply. The only supply available in the region would be the gas storage in Latvia, which could supply gas to Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania. In such a situation it is assumed that all gas could be used, also the volumes contracted to Russia. The country most exposed in the event of a supply interruption from Russia would be Finland as long as there is no interconnection to the other countries, because no alternative supply options exist for Finland at the moment. In Poland it would be possible to use the Yamal-Europe pipeline for reverse flow and thereby smoothen the impact to North West Europe, where European production from The Netherlands, Norway and Denmark could be rerouted and further production could to some extent be increased and supply from gas storage and LNG imports could be used to ensure additional supply. The solutions to reduce the impact of a Russian gas disruption are: Pipeline connection between Poland and Lithuania Pipeline connection between Finland and Estonia (Latvia) LNG terminal Increased UGS in Latvia and Lithuania

5.8

Dispatching structure and decision making

Today the dispatching of gas in the Baltic Sea Region is divided onto different transmission system operators, of whom some receive commercial booking and nomination from the shippers on a daily basis. The decision of the supply of gas to the East Baltic Sea region is made by Gazprom after consultation and information to the national gas companies. As an example the gas supply to Lithuania is a combination of supply from Belarus and from the gas storage in Latvia, where the supply from Latvia is a residual between the needed volumes and the volumes which can be supplied from Belarus.

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

32/73

The gas companies in the countries have the responsibility for balancing which takes place on a daily basis. By use of line pack capacity etc. it is possible to maintain certain flexibility, typically between 5 and 10 percent. In Russia the dispatching is centralised and the nomination of gas to the different pipeline systems depends on bilateral agreements. On the EU side there is no formalised coordination on a day-to-day basis for receiving gas from Russia. For the large transit pipelines like Yamal-Europe and Nord Stream it is assumed in the present study that nomination is relatively rigid. However one way of securing gas supplies to the Baltic countries, in situations where not enough gas supplies is available from Russia, would be by lowering the offtake in Germany from these two major pipelines. If no coordination takes place, in particular Finland will physically be at the low pressure end of the pipeline in the future, after offtake to St. Petersburg and Nord Stream however large new volumes of gas will be brought to the region via new pipelines in Russia.

6.

Identification of the benefits of the interconnections through the value of capacity


6.1 Benefits of the interconnections whole sale prices net back value of gas

Gas consumers in the Baltic countries have traditionally benefited from having low gas prices, due to the Baltic countries and Finland being very close to Russian gas sources, thus benefiting from low transportation costs. However in recent years the netback principle, which was one of the main reasons for the low import prices in the Baltic countries and Finland, has been abandoned. This has lead to higher import prices in the Baltic countries and Finland, and has lead to a convergence of prices between Northwest Europe and The Baltic countries and Finland. The following section takes a closer look at gas prices and the development of prices in the Baltic countries and Finland. We take a look at what the change in pricing regime, i.e. the abandonment of the netback principle will affect gas prices in the Baltic countries and Finland and thus the incentives for investment.

6.2
6.2.1

Russian gas supply prices

Gas import prices and contracts Gas import prices (wholesale prices) today in the Baltic countries and Finland are in general based on long term contracts (the duration of contracts differ between countries) which are linked to the oil price. The duration of the contracts differ from country to country with Lithuania having a gas contract to 2015, Latvia to 2030, Finland to 2025 and Estonia to 2015.

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

33/73

The oil price used in the contracts is subject to a delay of time i.e. a time lag is included, this time lack differs between 6 and 9 months in the Baltic countries. The difference in time lag implies that gas prices differ considerably between the countries, when we have very volatile oil prices. This difference in prices gives basis for implementation of interconnectors between the Baltic countries in order to smoothen gas prices in the region. Further in the event of very volatile oil prices we may have that LNG imports could be economic viable in times of falling oil prices, because the spot market price for LNG may adapt quicker to the lower oil price. This could also allow for LNG imports into the gas storage in Incukalns during summer, when gas prices on the spot market are generally lower. Gas import prices, in the Baltic countries, have over the recent years changed from being based on the netback principle to the principle of fuel-to-fuel competition as described above. This shift in pricing paradigm should eventually lead to a complete convergence in gas prices between the EU gas market and the Baltic countries as fuel-to-fuel prices are based on international prices and are not subject to regional price differences as has been the case for gas prices. Differences in prices may still occur as the specific formulas, which gas import prices are based on, may differ from contract to contract. The introduction of oil based gas import contracts have already created situations where gas prices in the Baltic countries were not only the same, but even higher than in e.g. Germany. In order to evaluate the impact of the change in pricing regime, we take a look at how prices used to be set in accordance with the netback principle. 6.2.2 Netback prices in the Baltic countries and Finland Historically gas import prices from Russia have been subject to the principle known as netback gas price. The principle bases the gas price in a geographical location on the price of competing fuels at the market centre minus the transportation costs of the gas. In recent years Russia has been abandoning the principle of netback pricing and has started applying a common gas import price for the entire EU. However the idea of netback prices still allows us to evaluate the value of the gas at different points in the system, due to varying transportation costs. Reviewing the netback prices also enables us to evaluate how the value/price of gas depends on the proximity of the gas resources, as well as the impact of integrating gas markets and reducing transportation costs. Netback prices in the Baltic countries and Finland are calculated the following way: German import prices (market prices) minus transportation costs through Poland, through the Yamal-Europe pipeline and through the Belarus transmissions system. The below table shows the German gas import price, the transportation costs and the calculated netback costs for gas in the Baltic countries and Finland. Table 6 below shows the different components of the Baltic netback gas price.

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

34/73

Table 6 Netback gas price calculation for Baltic countries (USD per 1000 m3)

Transportation Costs German gas import price 325 6 Poland, Yamal (700 km) 18,5 7 Belarus (800 km) 21,5 8 Baltic Countries Netback price 285

The netback price is also illustrated in the below figure:


Figure 14 Netback gas price in the Baltic countries
Netback gas price - Baltic countries Transport (POL to BEL - 700 km) 400 Transport (BEL to RUS - 800 km)

300

Netback 40 $ per 1000 m3 German import price 325 $ per 1000 m3

200

100

Baltic gas price 285 $ per 1000 m3

0 Gas price

6.2.3

Impact of decreasing transportation costs Transportation costs are and were not only an issue for the gas importer who could import gas at lower costs the lower transportation costs were. Lower transportation costs also imply that the gas exporter can reach markets further away, at a relatively lower price. Although gas prices today are linked to oil, there still is leeway in gas contracts to shift the overall level of the gas price. Thus a decrease in transportations costs from Russia to the European gas markets could affect the Baltic countries and their import contracts, when they have to renegotiate import contracts, which for Lithuania and Estonia is already the case in 2015. Any large scale export project, pipeline or LNG, with low transportation costs from NW Russia to NW Europe could thus potentially have an impact on future gas prices in the Baltic region through gas contract renegotiations. One such project could be the Nord Stream, which according to plan is scheduled to be implemented in 2011 i.e. the first phase. The Nord Stream pipeline will set a new benchmark for gas transportation costs, as the project is characterized by relatively low costs per m3 of gas transported.

Source: Bundesamt fr Wirtschaft und Ausfuhrkontrolle (average 2008, Jan - Jun), http://www.bafa.de/, 1 EUR = 1.462 USD 7 Polish regulator, URE, 1 EUR = 1.462 USD (2008 average) 8 Transmission costs for Belarus are assumed to be the same as in Poland

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

35/73

Thus if the Nord Stream pipeline starts operation, it will become cheaper to send gas from NW Russia to NW Europe and could as argued above increase import prices in the Baltic countries, when gas contracts are due for renegotiation. Today transportation costs from the Baltic States to Germany can estimated as approximately the costs of transporting gas through the Yamal-Europe pipeline through Poland and Belarus. Existing transportation costs and future Nord stream transportation costs are shown in Table 7.

Table 7 Transportation costs from Russia to Germany, estimate (USD per 1000 m3)

Transit costs, total (Poland and Belarus) 39

Transportation costs, Nord Stream, estimate 9 20

As can be seen from Table 7 transportation costs from the Baltic Sea to Germany are likely to halve if Nord Stream comes online. As import prices in Finland and the Baltic countries are based on long-term oil-based contracts, the implementation of any large scale projects like, the Nord Stream project will not directly affect prices. However it is important to consider that, as the netback analysis above showed, the Nord Stream project will due to relatively low transportation costs, increases the value of exporting gas to Germany. This may not affect the Baltic countries right away, but this could affect renegotiations of contracts, which in particular is an issue for Lithuania and Estonia who both have long-term contracts ending in 2015. If the Baltic countries were integrated to the rest of EU gas market and receive access to supplementary gas supplies, this would not only improve their options in terms of supply sources but it could also create leverage in future gas import contract negotiations.

6.3
6.3.1

Gas retail prices

Low retail prices compared to other EU member states When comparing consumer gas prices in the Baltic countries and Finland, to the other countries around the Baltic Sea and to the EU27 in general, we have found that for both Domestic as well as industrial consumers prices are lower.

Assumptions made: total investment costs 7.4 Billion , Operational costs 2 % of investment costs annually and an IRR of approximately 8 %.

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

36/73

Figure 15 Gas prices, domestic consumption


1000 800
USD per 1000 m3

600 400 200 0 EU27 DK DE EE LV LT PL SE

Source: Eurostat, 2008S01, 20 GJ < Consumption < 200 GJ, without taxes, DK prices are from 2008S2, 1 EUR = 1.462 USD (2008 average)

Figure 15 shows how the three Baltic countries benefit from lower gas prices compared to the rest of the EU. Average EU gas prices are around 50 % higher than gas prices in the Baltic countries where prices range from 410 to 435 USD per 1000 m3 in the first half of 2008. Average EU prices were approximately 650 USD per 1000m3. 10 When looking at the industrial prices we see that industrial consumers do not benefit as much from the lower gas prices as the domestic consumers do. Prices in the Baltic countries and Finland are between 375 USD per 1000 m3 in Estonia and 488 USD per 1000 m3 in Lithuania, see Figure 16.
Figure 16 Gas prices industrial consumption
800

$ per 1000 m3

600

400

200

0 EU27 DK DE EE LV LT FI PL SE

Source: Eurostat, 2008S01, 10000 GJ < Consumption < 100000 GJ, without taxes, 1 EUR = 1.462 USD (2008 average)

10

No prices for Finland were available

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

37/73

When looking at gas prices in the Baltic countries and comparing them to overall gas prices in the EU, we see that gas prices in the Baltic countries are among the lowest in the EU, see Figure 17. The low prices are likely a combination of the following issues: Networks and infrastructure in the Baltic countries and Finland have already been amortized and thus do not impact prices, this could also explain why so few investments have made in the Baltic countries and Finland, because any new investment would increase the regulatory asset base by relatively much and thus in effect the gas prices as well. Regulation in the Baltic countries and Finland is stricter compared to the rest of Europe, which also would give low incentive for new investments. The level of security of supply is very low and costs of security of supply are therefore not affecting gas prices.
Figure 17 Gas prices in the EU, domestic consumption
1000

800 USD per 1000 m3

600

400

200

0
K C Z EU 27 N L IT O EE LT E LU I FR G LV H U PL PT E IE B E ES K S K U S R B D D S A T

Source: Eurostat, 2008S01, 20 GJ < Consumption < 200 GJ, without taxes, price from Denmark from 2008S02, 1 EUR = 1.462 USD (2008 average)

6.3.2

Potential for market integration Pricing data gives evidence to the fact that there is some potential for optimisation of the gas markets. E.g. the price difference between Finland and Estonia is almost 90 USD per 1000 m3. This implies that implementation of the Balticconnector and an opening of the market would allow gas consumers in Finland to import gas from Estonia saving with savings of almost 20% (minus additional transportation costs). Further potential for beneficial market integration is between Poland and Lithuania. Industrial consumers in Lithuania paid almost 490 USD per 1000 m3 of gas whereas polish industrial customers only paid approximately 410 USD per 1000 m3.

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

38/73

6.4
6.4.1

LNG prices

EU LNG import prices To estimate what the price of LNG would be in the Baltic Sea we first take a look a historic LNG import prices in the EU. IN 2007 the average import prices for LNG were:
Table 8 Average LNG import prices, USD per 1000 m3 11

Spain average 2008 (Average Jan Jun) 313

EU average 311

UK average 357

As data for LNG is the most abundant for Spain, we will base our calculations for an LNG price in the Baltic Sea on the Spanish LNG price, further the Spanish LNG price is also very close to the average EU price 12. Prices may however diverge from the Spanish price as can be seen by looking at the UK LNG import price (see Figure 18).
Figure 18 LNG import prices
Spain average EU average UK average

700 600 $ per 1000 m3 500 400 300 200 100 0 mar mar apr maj apr maj nov okt dec jan jun jan aug jun feb feb aug jul sep jul

2007
Source: IEA - Energy Prices and Taxes Fourth Quarter 2008

2008

6.4.2

LNG price in the Baltic Sea We assume that Baltic Sea LNG import prices are equal to Spanish import prices plus additional transportation costs. Additional transportation costs are calculated in the following way:

11

Source: IEA - Energy Prices and Taxes Fourth Quarter 2008

This is partly due to the fact that Spain has the largest import of LNG and thus make up a large part in the calculated EU average

12

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

39/73

Estimated distance from Spain (Barcelona) to the Baltic Sea is 6000 km 13, at an average speed of 35 km/h, it takes approximately seven days to travel the distance (assuming the ship has to travel back and forth, we have a total of fourteen days of travelling. The daily LNG carrier costs are 50.000 USD 14 for a tanker able to carry 145.000 m3 of LNG (87 million m3 of gas), thus we have that total travelling costs are: 14 (days) x 50000 USD = 700.000 USD, Which is equal to (700.000 USD / 87.000.000 x 1000) = 8 USD per 1000 m3 Further additional re-gasification costs will also affect the final Baltic Sea LNG import price, due to the fact that, because the Baltic Sea is colder than e.g. the Mediterranean, seawater cannot be used for re-gasification. This implies that regasification costs are approximately 2 % higher in coldwater compared to warm waters, as 2 % of the imported LNG is used for re-gasification purposes in cold water. The below table shows the different price components of a Baltic Sea LNG price:
Table 9 LNG price in the Baltic Sea, USD per 1000 m3, 2008 Jan Jun Average

LNG price Spain UK 313 357

15

Additional Transport costs 8 4

Additional cold water/ regasification costs 16 6,5 7

Total Baltic Sea LNG Price 328 368

With German gas import prices averaging 325 USD per 1000 m3 and LNG import prices being 313 in Spain and 357 in the UK, it seems a fair assumption that LNG and pipeline imports are relatively competitive in the EU. Based on Spanish import prices we thus have that LNG import prices in the Baltic countries, would incur a price premium of around 15 USD per 1000 m3 and based on UK prices the premium would only be 11 USD per 1000 m3. 17 However the difference between LNG in Spain and the UK is that Spain relies on LNG for almost 70 % of total consumption and in the UK LNG makes up around 2 % in

For calculations for the UK we assume the travelling distance is half, i.e. 3000km Source: Bloomberg, Tanker rates are relative volatile and are subject to fluctuations in demand and supply for LNG tanker capacity, tanker rates have decreased considerably over the last few years 15 IEA - Energy Prices and Taxes fourth Quarter 2008 16 Assumed to be 2 % of total gas, 17 Additional costs because of icy waters may also incur, but are not included in this analysis.
14

13

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

40/73

2007. 18 If we look at import prices we also see that UK prices are much more volatile. This indicates that LNG imports, in Figure 18, in the UK are based on spot market trading and in Spain Long term contracts and a steady import flow of LNG. Assuming that LNG would not constitute the main import source in the Baltic countries, it seems plausible to assume that LNG prices in the Baltic countries would resemble the LNG prices from the UK. That is LNG would play a relatively small role and prices would be more volatile like in the UK. Thus if LNG is only used as a minor supplement e.g. for security of supply purposes, this could entail higher LNG prices. Because if LNG is only imported when there is a gas shortage in the Baltic countries (e.g. when it is cold), then this is likely to coincide with an overall high LNG price, because it is likely that it will be cold in all of Europe, which will lead to higher gas spot market prices and higher LNG prices. Recently it has been argued that the significant increase in LNG import capacity in Europe, in combination with the relative low utilisation rates of the LNG terminals, that LNG imports in the future may not lead to gas-to-gas competition but in effect terminal-to-terminal competition. How a LNG terminal in Finland or one of the Baltic countries will affect competition in the end and what the price will be will to a large extent depend on the specific contract that is made. The increased costs for additional transportation and regasification may to some extent be shared between the LNG buyer and seller.

6.5

Conclusion on prices

Gas prices between the Baltic countries, Finland and the EU gas market are converting, due to a change in pricing regimes. This increases the incentive for investment and makes diversification of gas supplies increasingly economically viable for the Baltic countries and Finland. This increases the economic viability of LNG imports, as well as other pipeline imports, considerably. However the specific contract, which can be negotiated with the LNG supplier, will too a large extent, determine how competitive LNG exactly will be compared to Russian pipeline imports. Furthermore, the convergence of prices and the potential implementation of new large scale transportation projects, like the Nord Stream project, puts added emphasis to the fact that additional gas supplies and integration of these isolated gas markets has to be secured in order to not only increase security of supply and competition, but also in order to ensure a level playing field when gas import contracts are due for renewal.

18

Source: BP Statistical energy review 2008

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

41/73

7.

Main infrastructure gaps and bottlenecks


7.1 Missing links
The main infrastructure gaps and bottlenecks in terms of ensuring the integration of the four Baltic countries and Finland into the EU integrated system, which today includes 21 member states (only Malta and Cyprus are not connected to the system apart from the Baltic member states), are: A connection from Finland to another member state. Two possibilities are in principle possible, Estonia and Sweden. However as the plans for establishing a gas network in Sweden, including connection of Stockholm has been halted the only short term solution seems to be a connection to Estonia, e.g. the Baltic connector. A connection from one of the Baltic Countries, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania to one of the member states which are already interconnected. Here the likely possibilities are: Lithuania-Poland (Amber PolLit or (OS)) Lithuania or Latvia to Germany Lithuania or Latvia to South Sweden Lithuania or Latvia to Denmark/Sweden directly or via Poland

Norway to Denmark or Norway to Sweden connection Denmark to Poland Germany to Sweden

7.2

Principles for interconnections around Baltic Sea

As part of the Baltic Energy Task Force in 1999 the following three principle variants of how to integrate the Baltic countries were evaluated.
Figure 19 Baltic Sea integration variants

Baltic Ring

Zipper

Fishbone

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

42/73

With the establishment of the Nord Stream without any branch lines, the Fishbone solution is at present not viable. Also the lack of decision to bring gas to Stockholm by pipeline the full Baltic Ring will be difficult to establish. The western part of the ring may hence be replaced by LNG import i.e. instead of having pipeline connection to Denmark, Sweden and Norway, and hence access to gas supplies, this part of the ring could be replaced by LNG imports. The eastern part of the Baltic Ring has partly been physically established by the Yamal-Europe pipeline and the opening of the connection between Latvia and Lithuania. The only missing part is hence the Lithuania to Poland and the Baltic Connector to have the link within the EU territory. The Baltic Pipe and Baltic Gas Interconnector can establish a more direct connection between the North Sea and the Polish gas market. Alternatively a direct connection could be established between Denmark/Sweden and either Latvia or Lithuania. This would however leave the North Eastern part of Poland without a gas supply. Eventually gas interconnectors like Balticconnector and Baltic Pipe could be connected to the Nord Stream pipeline and hereby establish a part of the Fish bone solution.

7.3
7.3.1

Bottlenecks in the system

Latvian/Lithuanian border In the above assessment no detailed flow calculations have been carried out and no assessment of the availability of the gas at the fields and distribution between different Russian outlets have been made either. The following graph shows the gas flow to and from Lithuania in 2009 as an example on the dynamics of gas supply in the region. At present there is a capacity limitation on the Latvian/Lithuania border, mainly due to the size of meter station. However the technical condition of the pipeline itself may also need some improvement. This is presently being assessed by inspection. It is assumed that the capacity of the connections based on the existing pipelines can be increased to 10 mcm/day

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

43/73

Figure 20 Gas flow to/from Lithuania 2009


25.000.000

20.000.000

cm/day

15.000.000

10.000.000

5.000.000

0
1 14 27 40 53 66 79 92 105 118 131 144 157 170 183 196 209 222 235 248 261 274 287 300 313 326 339 352 365

Belarus

Kaliningrad

To/from Latvia

Source: Lietuvos Dujos

7.3.2

Polish- German border - Reverse flow in Yamal-Europe pipeline The capacity from Germany to Poland is today limited to around 9 mcm/day in a direct pipeline from Germany to Poland. The limited capacity is hence due to lack of reverse flow in the Yamal-Europe pipeline, which physically has a much higher capacity. The Yamal-Europe pipeline is stretching from Siberia via Belarus and Poland to the German/Polish border, where it is connected to the Wingas-transport system in Mallnow at Frankfurt an der Oder. The Polish part of the Yamal-Europe pipeline is 680 km long, has a diameter of 1420 mm (56), design pressure of 84 bar. The capacity of the system is approximately 35 bcm/year. In 2007 the transported volume was 31 bcm. There are 5 compressor stations along the pipeline. At two of these systems the national Polish gas transmission system in the western part of the country. Originally the route was prepared for two parallel pipelines and stations, river crossings take this into account. The project was established in 1996 before Polish membership of the EU and before the first EU Directive on the internal gas market. The pipeline is as such not prepared for the internal market. There is no access to third party transportation in the pipeline neither from the Belarus border, from within Poland or from Germany in reverse flow. However, no formal derogation is given to the pipeline. The tariffs for using of the Yamal-Europe pipeline in Poland are regulated by the Polish regulator. If reverse flow in the pipeline was possible, the pipeline could be used for diversification of gas supply in Poland (via Germany) under normal operation and for Security of supply in case of interruption of supply from Belarus or Ukraine. The pipeline could also be used as connection to an interconnector to Lithuania (Amber) and hereby provide the same services to Lithuania and further to Latvia and Estonia.

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

44/73

The recommendations given for infrastructure projects depends on the opening of the Yamal-Europe pipeline and therefore two sets of recommendations are given with and without such opening. The main shareholders in EuroPol Gas, the company owing the polish section of the Yamal-Europe pipeline are PGNIG and Gazprom each with a 48% interest. Contact to the company EuroPol Gas has shown that a decision to open the pipeline for reverse flow is an issue to be decided directly by the shareholders. It is therefore recommended that this issue should be opened by the EU Commission as it impacts not only Poland but also Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland and Germany and potentially also impacts some of the proposed projects in the region. 7.3.3 Denmark-Germany The capacity in the Danish-German system is limited to only around 9 mcm/day from Denmark and only 2 mcm/day from Germany to Denmark, mainly due to lack of compressor facilities within Denmark. LNG storage The Finnish gas import is currently close to maximal utilisation, approximately more than 95 % of total capacity is used during a very cold day and more than 90 % of total import capacity is utilised during a normal winter day. This implies that if additional peak supply capacity is implemented in Finland, then this would allow for a better utilisation of the current import pipelines i.e. increase capacity, as well as it would increase security of supply. However the Finnish import capacity is not the only potential bottleneck that may be cause for concern. Another potential concern is that flexibility of supply during winter could be limited, because storage flexibility in supply during winter is relatively low compared to other countries around the Baltic Sea, which increases vulnerability in terms of increases in peak demand. Table 10 shows the level of flexibility provided by gas storage in the Baltic Sea Countries. Thus supply of peak capacity could also
Table 10 Storage flexibility

7.3.4

Country Latvia Denmark Poland Germany

Storage flexibility (withdrawal/volume) 1,0 % 1,6 % 2,2 % 2,4 %

Considering the high utilisation of the Finnish import capacity, as well as the low flexibility of the Incukalns storage, we have that the entire Baltic region in general, and Finland in particular, faces a security of supply risk in terms of peak supply and demand. Increasing flexibility and peak supply by constructing LNG storage in connection with LNG import capacity is an efficient way of increasing security of

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

45/73

supply in Finland and in turn the rest of the region, as more peak supply in Finland would allow Incukalns to supply other countries in the region during in the event of e.g. a cold spell. In Figure 20 the flow pattern to and from Lithuania is shown, the figure indicates how consumption in the region is characterized by a number of peaks during the entire year.

8.

Identification of pending questions preventing the implementation of an integrated energy market


8.1 Derogations status and conditions
Today Latvia, Lithuania and Finland all benefit from having derogation from the EU gas market directive. Only Estonia has since the 1st of July 2007 opened its gas market. This opening is however only effective legally, in reality no competition exists because the market is dominated by one large natural gas supplier. Nevertheless Estonia has (legally) unbundled the integrated gas company Eesti Gaas and this market opening means that the infrastructure for competition in Estonia is already in place once the Estonian gas market is integrated with the rest of the EU gas market or is connected to additional gas supplies, even though the current impact is perhaps negligible. Latvia and Lithuania have derogations until 2010 based on Directive 2003/55 article 28 (2) on emerging markets, which states that: A Member State, qualifying as an emergent market, which because of the implementation of this Directive would experience substantial problems may derogate from Articles 4, 7, 8(1) and (2), 9, 11, 12(5), 13, 17, 18, 23(1) and/or 24 of this Directive. Lithuania has already said they will not apply for a new derogation and will therefore be obliged to follow the market directive from the 1st of January 2010. Latvia will be obligated to open their gas market to competition by January the 1st 2010. However the unusual circumstances in the Latvian gas market will likely constitute an obstacle in terms of establishing a functioning market. This is due to the fact that Latvia is, during wintertime, exclusively supplied by the Incukalns gas storage, which is subject to a long-term agreement between Latvijas Gaze and OAO Gazprom valid until 2030. Further Exclusive rights for Latvijas Gaze exist in terms of transmission, storage and distribution until 2017 19. The long term agreement with Gazprom, as well as the exclusive right given to Latvijas Gaze, constitute a considerable obstacles in terms of establishing a functioning market in Latvia, but also potentially the rest of the Baltic countries, as they rely on Latvia for storage services. Access to storage services is vital in order to
19

Source: Latvian Ministry of economics

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

46/73

enter any market, this could be an obstacle for the entire region. However, it does not imply that a market opening is not possible, especially if the Baltic gas market is integrated with the EU gas market and new sources of supply are introduced, then the importance of Incukalns could be reduced somewhat. According to the EU gas market Directive 2003/55, Article 28 on Emergent and isolated markets which states that: Member States not directly connected to the interconnected system of any other Member State and having only one main external supplier may derogate from Articles 4, 9, 23 and/or 24 of this Directive. A supply undertaking having a market share of more than 75 % shall be considered to be a main supplier. This derogation shall automatically expire from the moment when at least one of these conditions no longer applies. Finland has attained derogation in accordance with the above directive. This derogation will in principle apply until one of these conditions is no longer valid. This could imply that building a LNG terminal in Finland with less than 25 % of total Finnish supplies would still allow Finland to uphold the derogation unless an interconnector is built. [The Ministry of Employment and Economy in Finland have commented that: In the 3rd gas market directive the derogation applicable for Finland will be amended by stating that a connection between Finland and the Baltic States would not remove Finlands rights for derogation] With the objective of the BEMIP to enable full functioning of an integrated internal energy market this would hence include one of the following steps for Finland: Creating an interconnection to one other EU member state (most reasonably Estonia or Sweden) To open for one more gas supplier with a market share of at least 25 percent. As it is at present not likely that Russia will open for such new entrants to their system, the most likely solution would be to establish a LNG terminal and hereby create the possibility for a new supplier. Poland has not been granted any such derogation, however the Yamal-Europe pipeline in Poland, owned by EuRoPol Gaz is not following the EU gas market directive, as no network code or third party access is granted. In practice the company hereby acts as if derogation had been granted.

8.2

Uniform regulation

All four countries in the region have somewhat different setups and preconditions in terms of regulation and legal framework e.g. Estonia is unbundled, Latvia has specific conditions regarding its storage and Finland has derogation. Network tariffs and prices are regulated in all four countries. Even though all four markets are regulated the methodologies which are applied in the various countries, may differ from country to country. Thus tariff and prices or formulas for calculating

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

47/73

them must be approved by the appropriate authority e.g. in Estonia the energy regulator must approve the network tariff and gas prices. This means that prices and tariffs differ from country to country and thus the economic viability of projects may also change depending on what regulation applies. This may create an obstacle in regards to implementation of cross-border investments, because some investments may be profitable under one set of regulation and not under another. Thus it is vital that rules and legislation are as uniform in all the countries in order to create the appropriate investment climate and in order to ensure the creation of a functioning gas market in the region. The issue of such a regulatory gap in terms of cross-border investments is an issue, which has also been addressed in the third package on the amending of the 2003/55 gas directive. Here it has been proposed to introduce an Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER). The ACER agency would among other things, provide a framework for national regulators to cooperate, with the specific task of handling cross-border situations. The Baltic countries could, whether or not the ACER is adopted in a new gas market directive, increase cooperation on a regional level, as the issues in the Baltic countries are mainly of a regional nature, possibly including ERGEG in a guiding or coordinating role. The cooperation could be of a bilateral nature between neighbouring countries or it could include 3 or all 4 countries. However, some form of cooperation is critical in terms of ensuring that cross-border investments are implemented in due time.

8.3
8.3.1

Security of supply

Low security of supply Baltic Sea countries Security of supply is relatively low in most of the countries in the East Baltic Sea region due to lack of interconnection and only one main supplier. Furthermore only a few countries have access to underground gas storage and no countries have so far access to any LNG facilities. The low level of security of supply is illustrated in the below figure.

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

48/73

Figure 21 Security of Supply in the Baltic sea Region

Source: Ramboll security of supply model 20

The supply situation to Latvia and in turn to the entire East Baltic region differs from the situation in the rest of the EU as gas is only supplied during summer and the large Incukalns gas storage is used for gas supply during winter as the only supply source in the region. Hereby the country becomes very dependent on the technical integrity of this storage. In the Figure 21 a relatively high weight is given to underground gas storage and the full capacity of Incukalns is allocated to Latvia and the lack of gas supply by pipeline during winter is not taken into consideration. Gas supply to Lithuania normally only takes place via a pipeline from Belarus. The country is hence exposed to events in Russia as well as in Belarus. Only small volumes of gas can be supplied from the gas storage in Latvia. Major volumes of gas are supplied in transit to Kaliningrad, which gives a more balanced situation in respect to political and commercial risk for a gas disruption from Russia, but not for technical risk or transit risk in Belarus. Gas supply to Estonia takes place mainly via one pipeline. The older pipeline directly from St. Petersburg is not normally used. Gas can be supplied from the gas storage in Latvia. Gas supply to Finland takes place via two parallel pipelines from Russia. No storage is available and security of supply is mainly achieved by possibility for dual fuel usage by end-users. The supply situation in Finland is exposed to a situation where the country is located supply wise after large consumption centres like the St. Petersburg and from 2011 and 2012 the first and second Nord Stream pipelines. It is therefore assessed that the security of supply to Finland may impacted with new
The Ramboll SoS index is based on a set of quantifiable parameters like number of supply countries and pipelines, indigenous gas production, gas storage, LNG terminals, gas substitution and country risks for supply and transit countries, which have been weighted and then compared.
20

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

49/73

supply sources from Shtokman and Siberia on the one hand and new outlets on the other. This is the background for the ongoing work on Balticconnector and LNG. The security of gas supply to Poland is better than to the rest of the region as the country has a considerable domestic production and import possibilities through the three neighbouring countries, Belarus, Ukraine and Germany. However as the recent gas crises in the Ukraine have shown Poland is still vulnerable to disruption and new transportation routes and supply are being analysed. Furthermore when evaluating security of supply it is important to keep in mind that security of gas supply and security of energy supply may differ, for example a considerable share of consumers in Finland are able to switch to other fuels in the event of a supply disruption. 8.3.2 Security of supply costs in general Security of supply is a cost which is not always internalised by the market. Therefore projects which provide security of supply should be evaluated considering this. If a project delivers considerable security of supply benefits, which are not internalised by the market, e.g. higher gas costs from LNG imports, then these additional costs (the price difference) should perhaps be paid by all (gas) consumers in the benefiting countries though e.g. a security of supply premium or tax collected by e.g. the TSO. Security of supply costs in the Baltic countries With some of the lowest prices in the EU, it seems there is room for increased costs due to security of supply considerations. However it should be kept in mind that even though gas prices are relatively low in the Baltic countries, gas costs make up a relatively large share of GDP compared to other EU countries. The graph below shows how much 2500 m3 of gas costs compared to GDP per inhabitant in the respective countries.
Figure 22 Gas costs share of GDP per inhabitant, 2008
Gas costs (2500 m3) share of GDP per inhabitant, 2008 (without taxes)

8.3.3

0,20 0,16 0,12 0,08 0,04 0,00


LU

EE

K B E

I EU T 27 A T ES

PL

PT

FR

LV

IE

LT

Source: Eurostat

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

50/73

8.3.4

Security of supply costs in Denmark In Denmark the TSO is responsible for ensuring security of supply. The TSO has to fulfil Danish security of supply regulations which constitute that there is at anytime enough gas for either one of these emergency situations: 60 days interruption of supply or 3 days with minus 13 degrees Celsius, thus a supply interruption scenario and an increased demand scenario. The Danish security of supply setup is ensured via a combination of storage, interruptible consumers and alternative sources and it costs around 40 MEUR every year to uphold this level of security of supply. Spending as much as 40 MEUR would in comparison allow the Baltic countries to build the Amber PolLit connection between Lithuania and Poland.

8.4

Improving market mechanisms and strengthening incentives

If the Baltic markets and Finland are integrated with each other and with the EU gas market network, creation of a common Baltic Gas exchange or could be established in order to create transparency in the Baltic gas market. Otherwise if a common TSO or a common integrated network was established, then a common virtual trading facility like e.g. the Danish Gas Transfer Facility (GTF), which allows shippers to trade with each other, could be established allowing players in the Baltic gas markets to optimise their gas port folios on a daily or weekly basis. In turn a Baltic gas trading platform or exchange could become a part of e.g. a larger Baltic Sea Trading platform as is the case on the electrical side, where the Baltic countries are joining Nordpool. A common TSO for the Baltic gas network, could have a common Baltic gas market open season to strengthen investment signals in the region and to ensure coherence and coordinate co-dependence between investment in the Baltic countries and Finland.

8.5

Identification of possible market related actions

Based on the above analysis and the overall purpose of this report, i.e. the integration of markets and increase of security of supply, the following possible market related actions have been identified. EuRoPol Gaz. Yamal-Europe gas pipeline: Implementation of gas market directive incl. reverse flow Alternatively merging with the national Polish gas transmission system

Unbundling of gas transmission systems in the Baltic countries and Finland.

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

51/73

Cooperation between regulators or even a common Baltic regulator in order to ensure a common policy and thus to ensure economic viability of projects on a regional basis. Cooperation or merging or gas transmission companies in two or more of these member states in order to secure fully integration and economics of scale [same model as GTS and Gasunie Deutschland], including: Common open season on new investments.

Storage release program for Incukalns gas storage to reduce the amount of long term storage contracts. Establishment of a common electronic trading platform with the goal of a gas exchange.

9.

Prioritisation of necessary interconnections, gas storages and LNG terminals


9.1 Methodologies, suite of models and evaluations
The following sections further evaluate the different projects in terms of which ones perform the best with regards to the overall objectives that have been set, i.e. focus is mainly on security of supply and market integration of the Baltic countries and Finland. Different approaches have been used to assess and evaluate the projects, in order to ensure a thorough and balanced evaluation. The analysis does not include a cost-benefit analysis of the different project as was originally intended. This is due to three principal reasons. Firstly all detailed Costbenefit analysis has not been possible due to a restricted timetable. Secondly costbenefit analysis may not give adequate information, as project information is restricted and thus any CBA would be based on assumptions which to a large extent would be equal for all projects. Thirdly and most importantly, the different projects evaluated in this report cover pipelines, LNG terminals and storages all projects which main purpose is to increase security of supply and to ensure market integration in the region. These two factors are very difficult to assess in CBA, because the value of security of supply is not directly assessable by CBA, which also goes for the value of increased competition. However, wherever it has been possible CBA elements have been incorporated in the various analyses performed in this report.

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

52/73

9.2

Baltic Sea projects are relatively small investments compared to major supply systems to EU

Compared to major supply systems to EU and to the value of the existing gas network in the Baltic Sea regions the projects considered under the BEMIP are relatively small, although the investments can be considered relatively large compared to the market size of the Baltic gas market. As an illustration the total investment of Nord Stream is compared to a LNG chain and a pipeline interconnector in the following graph. This is naturally reflecting the relatively small capacity of the system and that they will use existing network to connect to.
Figure 23 Baltic Gas Market Interconnection Plan investments in perspective
16.000 14.000 12.000 10.000
MEUR

8.000 6.000 4.000 2.000 0 Nord Stream Offshore Onshore Finnish LNG Compressors LNG receiving Lithuania-Poland LNG ship LNG gasification

Source: Ramboll and BEMIP project implementation sheets

9.3

List of project and project assessment

This section lists the various projects that evaluated in this report and further provides a brief SWOT analysis/comparison of the different projects. Some of the Projects have been presented in the BEMIP working group others have been included by Ramboll. The pipeline projects have been divided into two subcategories, short to medium term and long term. 9.3.1 SWOT Pipeline projects short to medium term

Table 11 Pipeline projects Short to medium term Cost and capacity Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

53/73

(1 bcm/year)

- Obvious connection between two networks - Only two TSOs need to be involved

- Limited gas available in Poland in national system

- Connection to Yamal-Europe - Local supply to Suwalki region - Extension of northern polish network - Balticconnector

- Unit transportation cost due to low capacity - Environmental challenge due to natural habitats - Regulation of tariffs - Access conditions to Yamal-Europe and possibility for reverse flow - Environmental challenge due to natural habitats- Regulation of tariffs

Amber PolLit (OS) 292 MEUR (3 bcm/year)

- Integration of EU gas networks with energy island in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania

- Limited gas available in Poland in national system - Involvement of three TSOs necessary

- Transit of gas to/from Poland from Storage in Latvia - By using a larger diameter (36 instead of 26) pipeline the connection can also be used for larger scale import and transit - Extension of northern polish network - Balticconnector

Amber PolLit 122 MEUR (2 bcm/year)

- Integration of energy island in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Finland

- No new gas - Environmental and approval process is a challenge, ESPOO - Capacity of network in Estonia - Involvement of three TSOs necessary

- Amber - Combine with LNG in Finland or Estonia - Mid Nordic could be woken alive - Connection to Nord Stream

- Lack of political and commercial support - Relatively large increase in tariff asset base

Balticconnector

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

54/73

180 MEUR (3.5 bcm/year)

- Local supply - Integration of Poland and Germany - Reverse flow Strong political and commercial support

- Physical gas flow against main flow direction

- Integration into existing network

- May become less economically viable by implementation of Baltic Pipe, LNG, Yamal-Europe

InterTransGas

1150 MEUR (8 bcm/year)

- New gas from interconnected Norwegian system - Strong governmental support

- Complex system - Many stakeholders - Environmental and approval process is a challenge, ESPOO - Availability of gas

- Development of Norwegian and Swedish gas market - Increase competition Increases SoS in Poland and Denmark

- Unit cost due to long pipeline small diameter - Swedish policy versus gas

Skanled 440 MEUR (3 bcm/year)

- Short route for North Sea gas to Poland, bypassing Germany - Security of supply to Copenhagen and Sweden - Polish gas company has gas reserves in Norway

- Need for strengthening of Danish Polish system - Environmental and approval process is a challenge, ESPOO - No long-term supply in Denmark at the moment - Deudan

- Large scale import to Denmark as Danish gas goes to the west - Combine with LNG in Poland - Interconnection to Nord Stream

- Opening of Yamal-Europe in reverse flow may outcompete project - Insufficient gas in Denmark - Gas transmission tariffs in Denmark/Poland

Baltic Pipe 350 MEUR (3 bcm/year)

Baltic Gas Interconnector

- Connects three countries - Security of supply to Sweden and Copenhagen - Environmental approval obtained in DK and SE

- No new gas

- Avoid transmission cost in Denmark to Avedre power plant - Fit with Skanled

- German authority process - Congestion in Denmark

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

55/73

LatviaLithuania

(2 bcm/year extra)

- pipeline in place, only meter station needed

- Need for rehabilitation of pipelines

- Increase use of gas storage on regional level

- Gazprom may want to limit interconnection

(4 bcm/year)

- Short distance, less than 100 km - System already planned for interconnection

- Capacity of Norwegian system - Different owners of platforms and pipelines in Denmark - Capacity of German system

- Use of depleted Danish fields for gas storage - Transit from Norway to The Netherlands - Increase security of supply in Denmark and Sweden

- Need for gas treatment between Denmark and Norway

DK-NO 200 MEUR (3 bcm/year)

9.3.2

Deudan

- Pipelines already in place

- Regulation in Germany and Denmark

SWOT Pipeline projects Long-term The following projects may not be implementable for the short- to medium term, but can be considered for the long-term development of the Baltic Sea gas market in particular to connect the East and West Baltic Sea in case an opening of the YamalEurope for reverse flow is not secured.
Table 12 Pipeline projects Long-term (5 bcm/year)

Amber Baltic (Szczecin Gdansk- LT)

Already a part of Long-term polish planning from Szczecin to Gdansk

- Moving gas against dominant flow direction

- Strengthening of gas supply in Nortern Poland

- Environmental problems, nature reserves from Gdansk to Lithuania - Reverse flow in Yamal-Europe - Cost

1000 MEUR ( 3 bcm/year)

- Direct way for gas from Mid Norway to Finland - Gas to Trondheim

- Project is discontinued, no owner - Resistance against project in Sweden - Gas suppliers not interested

- Connection to Stockholm - Balticconnector

- Environment - Cost and timing

MidNordic 850 MEUR (3 bcm/year) DK-Latvia

- Direct east-west connection - Alternative to Baltic Pipe + Amber PolLit

- New project - Environmental and approval process is a challenge, ESPOO

- Interconnection to Nord Stream - Large scale import direct to Denmark

- Complicated ESPOO procedure - Cost and timing

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

56/73

9.3.3

SWOT LNG projects

Table 13 LNG projects

Strengths
120 MEUR (0.3 bcm/year) - Under construction

Weaknesses
- Not connected to network

Opportunities
- First mover

Treats
- Cost

Sweden LNG

500 MEUR (2.5 bcm/year)

- Large market in Poland - Mature project, transferred to system operator - First gas contract being completed - Easy access by ship

- Competition from Baltic Pipe - Competition from reverse flow in Yamal-Europe

- First mover - Location in centre of market with use of Baltic Pipe for DK - Use for Germany

- Unit cost due to small size

Polish LNG

- Strong company as developer 500 MEUR (2.5 bcm/year) - Directly connected to a large market - Strong company as developer - Existing port facilities in Inkoo and Skldvik - Ice problems - No agreement with gas suppliers and ship owners - Combined with Balticconnector and use for the region - Opening of gas market - Increased competition - Potential for peak supply - Environmental issues - Ice conditions and requirement to special ships - Unit cost due to small size

Finnish LNG

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

57/73

500 MEUR (2.5 bcm/year)

- Existing port facilities can be used in Paldiski or Tallinn

- Small market for Estonia - Competing with UGS in Latvia

Estonian LNG

- Combined with Balticconnector and use for the region, opening of gas market, increased competition

- Environmental issues - Ice conditions and requirement to special ships - Unit cost due to small size

Lithuanian LNG

300 MEUR (1.5 bcm/year)

- Use of existing port facilities - Shorter sailing distance than Finland/Estonia

- Competing with UGS in Latvia - No TSO active in development

- Regional use with strengthening of system

- Environmental issues - Unit cost due to small size

Further to these LNG projects there could also be possibilities in Latvia and Denmark. These projects have not been included in the assessments. 9.3.4 SWOT Storage projects

Table 14 Storage projects

Strengths
390-490 MEUR (0.9 bcm/year) - Proven reservoir - Experienced company

Weaknesses
- No diversification of supply - Need for strengthening of transmission system - Long term contracts for existing storage, uncertainty

Opportunities
- Strategic storage for entire Baltic Sea region

Treats
- Ownership and concessions - Requirement to competition

Incukalns expansion 2300 MEUR (6 bcm/year)

New storage Latvia

- Good geological conditions

- Not yet developed and uncertainty about cost

- Could be used as strategic storage for the region

- Expensive compared to expansion of Incukalns - Regulation of tariffs

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

58/73

New storage Lithuania

347 MEUR (0.5 bcm)

- Need for storage for seasonal use and Security of supply - No existing storage in Lithuania - Low cost as expansion of existing facilities

- Cost compared to Incukalns

- Combination with interconnectors - Sale of storage capacity to Kaliningrad and Poland

- Uncertainty about geology and reservoir conditions - Regulation of tariffs

- Regulated tariffs - Need for strengthening of transmission system

- Combination with Skanled - Sale of storage products to Sweden - Combine operation with wind development

- Regulation of tariffs - Environmental issues

Expansion of storage Denmark

- Flexibility of North Sea production decreases in line with depletion of fields

- Good geological conditions - Reduced flexibility in production in line with depletion of gas fields

- Competition from existing storage

- Combine with new import infrastructure like Nord Stream - Export of storage services to UK, Poland - Combine operation with wind development

- Oversupply of storage services

New storage Germany

New storage Poland

- Good geological conditions - Regional location will reduce need for transmission lines

- Lack of connection to Yamal-Europe

- Connection to Yamal-Europe

- Regulation of tariffs

9.4

Pipelines versus LNG projects

When prioritising the different projects one of the main decisions is whether to invest in pipelines or LNG. As all countries in the region have access to the sea, import of LNG is an option for all. This section evaluates the pros and cons of LNG versus pipeline investments.

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

59/73

Table 15 Comparison of LNG and pipeline investments

Pros
Pipelines / Interconnectors - Completes network with well known technology - Low operational cost - Low total cost - remove missing links and eliminate reasons for derogation LNG - New gas sources (but no deals so far) - Volumes could be increased during supply disruptions, high flexibility - Low cost of receiving terminal, while other investments in gasification and ships will be outside the region

Cons
- No new gas sources for the short pipelines - Environmental impact during construction

- New technology in Baltic Sea - Cold water, ice need for dedicated LNG carriers - High operational cost - Energy consuming technology (gasification and transport) with high CO2 emissions

Based on the above comparison the important issue is: how long pipelines are necessary in order to get access to other than Russian gas sources and to other transportation routes than via Russia and Belarus. The distance to closest other sources of gas are as follows, assuming that at least 3 bcm/year should be available: Finland to Norwegian Sea: Latvia to Germany: Lithuania to Denmark/Sweden: Lithuania to Poland (Yamal-Europe): Lithuania to Poland (Baltic Pipe/LNG): 900 km 600 km 600 km 330 km 800 km

If no connection to Yamal-Europe is possible the Lithuania-Poland pipeline will be somewhat longer, approx. 450 km and the available capacity from Poland to Lithuania will only be 0.6 bcm/year.

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

60/73

9.5
9.5.1

LNG assessment

Small or large scale LNG An important decision in terms of whether to invest in LNG terminals is to decide whether to go for several smaller LNG terminals or for one large terminal possibly with integration to the neighbouring markets. This is especially relevant seeing as most of the countries around the Baltic Sea are investigating the possibility of building a LNG terminal in order to solve the issue of security of supply. The construction of LNG terminals is associated with considerable economics of scale. This is to several issues such as Harbour costs, large scale LNG carriers tanks etc. Especially harbour costs can be significant, if the terminal has to built a new harbour this constitutes considerable additional costs compared to a terminal, which can utilise existing infrastructure e.g. an existing harbour. Looking at investment data available on LNG terminals, we see that there seems to be noticeable economics of scale i.e. smaller re-gasification plants have higher investment costs per BCM of capacity.
Figure 24 LNG economics of scale, re-gasification investment costs

Million Euro per BCM capacit

500 400 300 200 100 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Total capacity of terminal (BCM)

y = -96,368Ln(x) + 270,15 2 R = 0,9326

Source: Gas infrastructure Europe (GIE) and Ramboll LNG investment database

The projects which the above assumptions are based on are the following projects:
Table 16 LNG terminals under construction

Country France Italy Italy Netherlands

Name Fos Cavaou Porto Levante Toscana Gate terminal

Capacity (BCM) 8,3 8,0 3,8 9,0

Costs per BCM in MEUR 52 100 160 89

Total costs in MEUR 430 800 600 800

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

61/73

Turkey UK UK Poland Lithuania Sweden

Aliaga Dragon Southhook Swinoujscie N/A Nynshamn

6,0 6,0 10,5 2,5 1,5 0,3

76 44 54 200 200 400

455 266 569 500 300 120

Source: GIE and Ramboll LNG investment database

In terms of ship size there is also considerable economics of scale, the main size of ships that has been built since 1990 are around 130-150.000 m3 of LNG. Recently ships with a capacity up to 250.000 m3 LNG have been emerging. The graph below shows how costs and LNG ship capacity display considerable economics of scale.
Figure 25 LNG Tanker, economics of scale

10 Cost (Mio. USD per 1000 m3 capacity) 8 6 4 2 0 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 Tanker total capacity m3
Data on ships from 1990-2005

y = -2,1475Ln(x) + 26,862 2 R = 0,8331

Furthermore there are also likely some economics of scale in terms of contract negotiations, i.e. larger contracts are likely to be able to negotiate a better price for the LNG. Also, a smaller terminal could be less active on the spot market, if the size of the terminal causes any restrictions in terms of e.g. maximal vessel size. 9.5.2 Conclusions on LNG size The fact that these economics of scale exist for LNG terminal investments, indicates that it is economical optimal not to invest in many smaller LNG terminals but instead only to invest in one large terminal in the Baltic countries. As it is now LNG terminal projects seem to exist in almost all countries, it is however not feasible to construct them all considering the small size of the individual markets. Thus construction of a LNG terminal is dependent on whether the Baltic markets and Finland are integrated, as only the combined demand for gas in the Baltic countries

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

62/73

and Finland may justify the construction of even a relatively small LNG terminal of somewhere between 1 and 3 BCM. Therefore it should be analysed where a LNG terminal would be optimal, considering demand and existing infrastructure, as well as planned investments and what investments are required in combination with the terminal in order to ensure the highest level of economic viability. 9.5.3 Location of LNG As discussed above the economics of LNG and the size of the Baltic and Finnish markets imply that investments in LNG should be bundled into one, maximum two LNG receiving terminals. As all countries in East Baltic Sea are considering investing in an LNG terminal, a decision as to where the best location is needs to be made. An LNG terminal should be located close to any market to avoid additional transportation costs after re-gasification. This also indicates that LNG should be established were there are the fewest alternatives, which in this case is at the end of the system i.e. away from Poland and western European pipeline gas. The important issues concerning location of a East Baltic Sea LNG terminal are: Somewhere were there is a relatively large market that could be supplied At the end of EU network to limit the need for network investment.

Where the preconditions are the best in terms of establishing of a terminal e.g. an existing Harbour and/or access to the gas system. 9.5.4 LNG options traditional with storage or direct gasification on ship Different LNG options are being considered in the region. The two main options are traditional port facility with unloading facilities and LNG storage tanks and new technology for re-gasification onboard the LNG vessel and feeding the gas directly into the network and possibly underground gas storage. Overall re-gasification cost only comprise of approximately 10 % of the total share of LNG costs, whereas production, liquefaction and shipping make up 90 % of the value chain. The advantage of the traditional option with LNG storage tanks is that this solution can also be used to smoothen short term peaks in demand due to very cold weather and to supply gas in case of short term disruption of supply, which could be due to a technical failure. Due to the occurrences of very cold peaks LNG storage can be used to limit the investments in transportation capacity and in underground gas storage. A LNG storage could potentially also be used for own production of LNG during periods of time with surplus gas supply during summer period and low electricity prices.

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

63/73

Furthermore, because traditional LNG terminals allow for base-load 21 supply they provide a better basis for new competition, especially in markets with a single or dominant supplier, as it allows new players with no additional supplies in a specific market to enter the market. The disadvantages of traditional LNG terminals are higher investments costs and more environmental complications. Direct gasification is in particular a good option for large gas system which can easily absorb large volumes of gas. Therefore the option has been developed for e.g. the UK and US gas systems. Direct gasification can also be used in case of long disruptions of gas supply to the region. The number of ships with direct gasification is limited and direct gasification would probably require dedicated contracts with such ships. LNG re-gasification vessels (LNG RV) provide an alternative to traditional LNG terminals, they benefit from lower investment costs and as they do not include large onshore re-gasification facilities they are especially useful in locations were traditional terminal face a lot of difficulties in terms of environmental issues. As LNG RV feed the gas directly into the gas grid, it requires several vessels mooring at the same time if base-load capacity is to be supplied. However for security of supply or for supplies only during seasonal peaks, LNG RV makes a good alternative to the traditional terminals. LNG-RV is a relative new technology, which implies that although LNG RVs are not significantly costlier, compared to traditional LNG vessels without re-gasification, only a smaller number of LNG RV are being used today, this limits the potential to buy and sell the LNG on the international market, because vessels as well as receiving terminals require specific installations. Below are listed the pros and cons of the two LNG alternatives.
Table 17 Pros and cons of different LNG technologies Pros Traditional LNG incl. Storage capacity Base-load supply Storage option allows for peak supply Market development Access to world spot market Storage for peak supply Developed technology LNG re-gasification vessels Less investment required Less environmental issues Requires dedicated fleet of vessels Less market benefits in terms Base-load is used for continuous supply, while peak-load is used for short term supply, e.g. due to meet demand during short periods of time with cold weather or need for replacement of supply due to short interruption of other supply for technical or non-technical reasons
21

Cons More expensive Not in my backyard

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

64/73

Cost effective short term security of supply Seasonal peak balancing

of demand Smaller market in terms of supply Less access to spotmarket No storage option

Total LNG terminal costs for a 2.5 bcm import terminal are approximately 500 MEUR of which 150-200 MEUR are investments in storage facilities and the rest in harbour, pipelines, compressors etc. The LNG options presented by Poland and Lithuania are based on traditional LNG options with storage. Comparing the two options we have that traditional LNG has its strength in terms of market development and provision of both long and short-term security of supply. Using Re-gasification vessels provide less flexibility and even though investments are slightly lower, this only makes up a very small percentage of total investment costs. As there is no potential for underground gas storage in Finland and Estonia and as the Incukalns gas storage in Latvia has a low withdrawal rate we recommend establishing LNG storage in connection with a LNG import terminal. 9.5.5 Gas storage versus pipelines and LNG Gas storage is only available in Latvia of the four East Baltic countries. The geological conditions in Finland and Estonia have not shown any suitable locations for underground gas storage. Also in Lithuania it is doubtful if gas storage can be established as several feasibility studies have so far not demonstrated the feasibility of such an investment. In Latvia there are possibilities for enlargement of the existing Incukalns gas storage and also to establish new very large storage facilities with relatively low cost due to favourable geological conditions. Thus potential for gas storage investments in the region are limited e.g. the largest market, the Finnish market has no geological potential for storage. Further compared to LNG and pipelines, storage does not bring in any new gas and only increases security of supply in the event of supply interruption in gives not alternative supply option.

9.6

Qualitative comparison of projects

The overall objective is to increase security of supply in the region, as well as ensure the integration of the gas markets in the region with the rest of the EU. The following matrix compares some of these qualitative objectives in a simple red/yellow/green light methodology. This is done to ensure that focus in relation to the overall

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

65/73

objectives is preserved. Table 18 below highlights how the various projects, perform in terms of a ensuring that the overall goals of the BEMIP are obtained. These goals are: To ensure market integration requiring physical connection to the EU gas market and full adaptation of the gas market directive. To increase in security of supply, this requires new import capacity to the region. To ensure that projects can be fully implemented within approximately 5 years to ensure both market integration and Security of supply.

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

66/73

Table 18 Qualitative comparison of projects Baltic Gas Interconnector InterTransGas (DE PL)

Incukalns expansion

Amber PolLit (OS)

Latvia-Lithuania LNG Poland

Balticconnector

DK/SV - Latvia

Connect energy islands Lift Derogations Finland Latvia Lithuania Estonia Supply New supply to region 22 New supply in general Access to gas exchange Diversification to region Security of Supply Short term technical Long term Transit possibility Finland Estonia Latvia Lithuania Poland Sweden Maturity Ownership to project Operational within 5 years Capacity Regional capacity Legend

Yes

Uncertain

9.7
9.7.1

Quantitative comparison model

Model description For further assessment, the different projects have been evaluated in the Ramboll Gas infrastructure model, which evaluates projects on 5 overall categories: security of supply, market, climate and environment, General (timeframe and economics of scale) and cooperation (implementability). Each category is described using a set of parameters. The parameters have been assigned different weights, scores are then multiplied and normalised within each category to find a total score for each project, which can then be compared. The
22

Region in table 13 refers to Baltic countries and Finland

Lithuania UGS

LNG Lithuania

Finngulf LNG

Amber PolLit

Dobele UGS

Mid Nordic

Baltic Pipe

Skanled

Deudan

NO-DK

Amber

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

67/73

parameters used for evaluation of the Baltic energy market interconnection plan are listed in Table 19.
Table 19 Parameters for quantitative comparison

Categories

Parameters Supplier country Size of supplies new market Size of supplier country's reserves Number of countries which receive new import source Distance from field to EU border Supply competition Transit, risk profile of transit countries Replacement of current "risky" infrastructure Storage capacity (existing or new market) Offshore (risk) New gas to isolated markets - new gas goes to - Country with only one connection - Country with only imports from one country Dual direction of pipes Connection of not already integrated networks Provision of Third Party Access New gas supplied to market Seasonal differences in temperature

Security of supply

Market development

Climate change Degree of abundance of gas and Potential replacement (coal and oil) renewables Terrain (onshore) highlands General Cooperation Time frame of the project Economies of scale (Pipe diameter x Pressure) # of countries cooperating

The 5 categories are weighted in accordance with the below diagram.


Figure 26 Weights of categories

Security of supply Market Climate change and renewables General Cooperation

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

68/73

The projects that score the highest are the projects that provide both market integration and security of supply. This is mainly large projects or combinations of projects, but also the two interconnectors Amber PolLit and Balticconnector score high. Results of the quantitative analysis are shown in Figure 27, where both total scores as well as individual performance for each category can be seen.
Figure 27 Quantitative analysis (scores)
Security of supply
25

Market

Climate and environment

General

Coorperation

20

15

10

0
Ba lt Ba icc lti on A al l A cco nec mb er n n to m be e c r, r to LN Ya r + G Sm m LN al l A Ba al G lti Eu m ro be cc on pe r G nec az to D K/ sy r SE ste m L M at v In id ia te no rT rd ra ns N ic LN OG as D G (G Po K er Ba lan m an ltic d y Pi pe Fi Pol nn an gu d) lf LN G D eu Ba da lti L Sk n c G ith ua an as ni led In te a, Li rco UG S n In th cu ua nec ka nia to ln -L r s ex atv LN pa ia ns G io Li n th D ob ua ni el e, a U G S Sm

9.7.2

Conclusions on quantitative analysis LNG terminals do not come out as top scorers in the analysis, this is due to the fact that LNG terminals provide no integration of the markets and they mainly increase security of supply in the country where they are built. However, if an LNG terminal is combined with an interconnector then the score is of the combined project is increased considerably, this is illustrated by the combination of a LNG terminal and the Balticconnector which scores third highest of all the projects evaluated. Storage facilities also score relatively low, as they provide no additional gas supplies and only limited market integration. This however does not imply that gas storages are of low importance or value. The overall importance of gas storages in order to provide flexibility and to optimise gas systems is of utmost importance, however in the context of creating integrated markets, they score low compared to e.g. interconnectors. The highest ranking storage project is the Lithuanian project in Syderiai, which benefits from providing additional storage capacity which constitutes an alternative to Incukalns.

Sm al lA m be

r,

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

69/73

In terms of the West Baltic Sea the Top scorers are NO-DK to supply the Danish and Swedish markets, which is an important issue due to indigenous production in Denmark phasing out. Further the LNG terminal, Baltic Pipe and InterTransGas in Poland all receive a relative high score, because they ensure additional import capacity and diversification for Poland. Further two long term projects score relatively high in the analysis that is the Mid Nordic project and the DK/SE Latvia project. Both projects however do currently not have any ownership and possible implementation of these projects are thus only to be considered in the medium term (5+ years), not short term (<5 years).

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

70/73

A. [Appendix]

Ref. 953106/BEMIP Final report

You might also like