LNG DAILY

Volume 18 / Issue 58 / March 24, 2021

Asia LNG: Prices rise on early concerns of

Suez Canal situation, off-peak demand JKM TM 6.924 +0.139
AAOVQ00 ▲
Cumulative monthly average (May) AAOVS00 6.670
Previous month average (Apr) AAOVS03 6.077

KEY DRIVERS / MARKET HIGHLIGHTS

■■APAC MOC: BP bids $6.90/MMBtu for May 10-14 DES JKTC
PLATTS DAILY LNG MARKERS ($/MMBtu)
■■Sakhalin LNG tender heard awarded $6.70-6.80/MMBtu Mar 24 Change
■■PSO, Novatek issue tenders for April-July deliveries DES Japan/Korea Marker (JKM)
■■Intraday volatility on TTF due to Suez, energy complex JKM (May) AAOVQ00 6.924 0.139 ▲
H2 Apr AAPSU00 6.950 0.125 ▲
■■Atlantic MOC: BP bids DES Krk, offers DES NWE
H1 May AAPSV00 6.919 0.147 ▲
H2 May AAPSW00 6.929 0.131 ▲
SHIPPING MARKET HIGHLIGHTS H1 Jun AAPXA00 6.975 0.150 ▲
JKM (May) Japanese Yen AAOVR00 752.293 14.322 ▲
■■Pacificballast rate increased to 50% JKM (May) Chinese Yuan (CNY/mt) LJCMS00 2348.521 53.921 ▲
■■Atlanticshipping rate increased to $30,000/day round-trip DES Japan/Korea (JKM) derivatives Singapore close
May LJKMO00 6.950 0.350 ▲
■■Flex Courageous heard fixed by Shell for April US Gulf load
Jun LJKMO01 7.100 0.325 ▲
■■Energy Atlantic heard fixed by Glencore for around one year Jul LJKMO02 7.150 0.325 ▲
For full forward curve, see page 4
DES Japan/Korea (JKM) derivatives London close
NEWS HEADLINES
May JKLMO00 6.850 0.150 ▲
■■LNG spot shipping market not feeling impact from Suez Canal Jun JKLMO01 6.950 -0.025 ▼
incident..................................................................................................... 3 Jul JKLMO02 7.050 0.050 ▲
For full forward curve, see page 4
■■Pakistan State Oil invites bids for two DES Mediterranean Marker (MED)
LNG cargoes............................................................................................. 6 MED (May) AASXY00 6.030 0.018 ▲
H2 Apr AASXZ00 6.141 0.036 ▲
■■Croatia receives third LNG cargo aboard vessel from US: cFlow........ 6 H1 May AASYA00 6.030 0.018 ▲
■■France’s Total resumes Mozambique LNG work after security H2 May AASYB00 6.030 0.018 ▲
improvements.......................................................................................... 7 DES Northwest Europe Marker (NWE)
NWE (May) AASXU00 6.030 0.018 ▲
■■Suez Canal blockage sends ripples through global commodity markets......9
H2 Apr AASXV00 6.141 0.036 ▲
■■More stories..........................................................................................9-11 H1 May AASXW00 6.030 0.018 ▲
H2 May AASXX00 6.030 0.018 ▲
Middle East Marker (MEM)
CONTENTS
MEM (May) LMEMA00 6.650 0.137 ▲
■■Market Commentaries............................................................................. 2 H2 Apr LMEMB00 6.675 0.200 ▲
H1 May LMEMC00 6.650 0.150 ▲
■■News.......................................................................................................... 3
H2 May LMEMD00 6.650 0.125 ▲
■■Price Comparisons................................................................................... 3 H1 Jun LMEME00 6.700 0.125 ▲
■■Recent Tenders and Strips...................................................................... 4 DES West India Marker (WIM)
WIM (May) AARXS00 6.650 0.137 ▲
■■Shipping Prices......................................................................................... 7
H1 Apr LMEAA00 6.675 0.125 ▲
■■Hydrogen..................................................................................................15 H2 Apr LMEAB00 6.675 0.200 ▲
H1 May LMEAC00 6.650 0.150 ▲
SHIPPING RATES, MAR 24 H2 May LMEAD00 6.650 0.125 ▲
$/day Ballast rate H1 Jun LMEAE00 6.700 0.125 ▲
Asia Pacific day rate AARXT00 30,000 AAXTN00 50% FOB Gulf Coast Marker (GCM)
Atlantic day rate AASYC00 30,000 AAXTM00 100% GCM (Apr) LGCSM01 5.680 0.109 ▲
TCR Australia-Japan ATCRA00 23,571.43 H1 Apr LUGCA01 5.675 0.110 ▲
TCR USG-NWE ATCRB00 30,000.00 H2 Apr LUGCB02 5.685 0.108 ▲
TCR USG-Japan ATCRC00 30,000.00 H1 May LUGCC03 5.735 0.108 ▲

DAILY CUMULATIVE AVERAGES AND MONTHLY AVERAGES LNG NETBACK PRICES ($/MMBtu)
Cumulative Previous Mar 24 Change
Mar 24 ($/MMBtu) monthly average month average FOB Australia AARXR00 6.510 0.110 ▲
JKM AAOVS00 6.670 May AAOVS03 6.077 Apr FOB Middle East AARXQ00 6.500 0.150 ▲
DES West India AALIC00 6.413 May AAWIC03 5.793 Apr DES Brazil Netforward LEBMH01 6.260 0.108 ▲
DES Mediterranean AADCU00 5.852 May AASWC03 5.520 Apr FOB Singapore AARXU00 6.634 0.139 ▲
DES Northwest Europe AASDF00 5.852 May AASDE03 5.520 Apr FOB Murmansk AARXV00 5.800 0.018 ▲
FOB GCM LGGCN00 5.230 Apr LGGCM31 4.752 Mar
JKM Yen AAOVT00 726.381 May AAOVT03 650.354 Apr
JKM Yuan LJCWM00 43.397 May LJCWM03 39.766 Apr

www.platts.com www.twitter.com/PlattsGas
LNG DAILY MARCH 24, 2021
MARKET COMMENTARIES
Asia LNG: Prices rise on early concerns of
Suez Canal situation, off-peak demand
Singapore—The spot Asia-Pacific LNG market strengthened for a
second day, as Suez Canal transit uncertainties and lingering buying
interest for May cargoes drove bullish sentiment.
The S&P Global Platts JKM for May was assessed higher by 13.9
cents/MMBtu at $6.924/MMBtu on March 24, on a higher competitive
bid during the MOC. Platts assessed the first half of May at $6.919/
MMBtu and the second half of May at $6.929/MMBtu, with a narrower
intra-month contango structure of 1 cent/MMBtu, compared to 2.6
cents contango on March 23.
A confluence of factors like the ongoing Suez Canal blockage,
Australian floods, ongoing maintenances in Oman, Qatar and Malaysia
were creating expectations of near-term price increases, according to
market sources.
“There seems to be real tightness in market since prices are up,
despite carbon and crude coming down. [Buyers] might be thinking
that market is bottoming out so bids emerging now. Plus, there are no
new projects coming online anytime soon,” one Singapore trader said.
On the demand front, there was still some latent demand observed
from some Japanese and Korean end-users for cargoes delivering in
May— which is a typical “shoulder” month, or an off-peak period when
LNG demand is expected to be at a seasonally low.
On March 23, Sakhalin LNG was heard to have awarded its April 21
loading sell-tender at $6.70-6.80/MMBtu DES northeast Asia,
according to several sources.
Japan’s Tohoku Electric has also reported to have bought two
cargoes on the same day—H1 May at about $6.65/MMBtu and H2 May
at $6.70-6.80/MMBtu DES.
But buyers also cautioned against spot prices for May and June
rising higher than current levels which are closer to that of oil-linked
term contracts with lower slopes.
“We are now thinking of delaying procurement to June or later,” a
northeast Asian end-user said. “When we look at marginal variable
cost, $7/MMBtu is the limit to we can pay. Ideally, around $6/MMBtu,”
he added.
The overnight running aground of a mega container ship that has
blocked maritime traffic on both sides of the Suez Canal had delayed
LNG ship movement late on March 23 and on March 24.
The uncertainty of the transit disruption intensified bullish market
sentiment, with sellers saying that they were raising their offer levels
for April and May cargoes as a result.
However, un-confirmed reports late after Asia markets closed that
the stuck vessel had been partially refloated tempered such
expectations and pressured LNG futures prices lower.
The June JKM derivative contract which had traded higher to
$7.25/MMBtu late afternoon, fell to $6.80/MMBtu as of 7.30 pm
Singapore time.
Elsewhere, Pakistan State Oil issued a two-cargo buy-tender, for
May 20-21 and May 25-26 delivery, which will close on April 20. Russia’s
Novatek was also heard to have issued a five-cargo sell-tender, for
© 2021 S&P Global Platts, a division of S&P Global Inc. All rights reserved.
PLATTS LNG ASIA JKM RATIONALE & EXCLUSIONS
The S&P Global Platts JKM for May was assessed higher by 13.9 cents/MMBtu at
$6.924/MMBtu on March 24, on a higher competitive bid during the MOC.
Platts assessed the first half of May at $6.919/MMBtu and the second half of
May at $6.929/MMBtu, with an intra-month contango structure of 1 cent/MMBtu.
Value for May 12 was assessed at $6.91/MMBtu, above normalized BP’s bid at
$6.9/MMBtu for May 10-14 DES JKTC, which was normalized 5 cents/MMBtu
lower on narrower quality range.
A bid indication for the mid-May was received at $6.6/MMBtu.
Offer indications for first and second halves of May were received at $6.85/
MMBtu and $6.9-6.95/MMBtu respectively. The first-half May offer indication
could not be widely corroborated.
First-half and second-half May tradable levels were received at $6.75-7/MMBtu
and $6.8-6.95/MMBtu, respectively.
Market participants surveyed March 24 reported an almost flat structure
between H1 May and H2 May.
This rationale applies to symbol(s) <AAOVQ00>
Exclusions: DGI’s offer for May 22-24 DES JKTC at balance of month of the
average of May JKM plus 15 cents/MMBtu was excluded from the assessment
process.
PLATTS LNG ASIA WIM RATIONALE & EXCLUSIONS
The S&P Global Platts WIM for May was assessed higher by 13.7 cents/MMBtu at
$6.65/MMBtu on March 24, on higher indications.
Platts assessed first-half and second-half May both at $6.65/MMBtu, with a flat
structure, compared to a 2.5 cents/MMBtu contango on March 23.
The May JKM/WIM spread was assessed at 27.4 cents/MMBtu. Tradable level for
whole month May was received at $6.55-6.6/MMBtu.
This rationale applies to symbol(s) <AARXS00>.
Exclusions: No market data was excluded from the assessment.
PLATTS LNG US FOB GULF COAST DAILY RATIONALE & EXCLUSIONS
The FOB Gulf Coast Marker (GCM) for April was assessed at $5.680/MMBtu.
The assessment was based on pricing information heard from market sources
for FOB USGC cargoes loading in April.
This rationale applies to symbol(s) <LGCSM01>
Exclusions: None
PLATTS LNG EUROPEAN ASSESSMENT RATIONALE & EXCLUSIONS
The Northwest Europe Marker (NWE) for May was assessed at $6.030/MMBtu.
H1 NWE for May was assessed at $6.030/MMBtu, at a 30 cent/MMBtu discount
to the equivalent TTF forward contract.
H2 NWE for May was assessed at $6.030/MMBtu, at a 30 cent/MMBtu discount
to the equivalent TTF forward contract.
The Mediterranean Marker (MED) for May was assessed at $6.030/MMBtu.
H1 MED for May was assessed at $6.030/MMBtu, at a 30 cent/MMBtu discount
to the equivalent TTF forward contract.
H2 MED for May was assessed at $6.030/MMBtu, at a 30 cent/MMBtu discount
to the equivalent TTF forward contract.
The assessments were based on pricing information from market sources for
cargoes delivering within the region for May delivery.
In the Atlantic MOC process, BP submitted two offers. One May 14, 3.30 to 3.60
TBtu cargo into Northwest Europe and northern Spain at TTF Heren Month
Ahead May minus $0.15/MMBtu. The second offer was for one April 27, 3.30 to
3.60 TBtu cargo into Northwest Europe and Spain at TTF Heren Month Ahead
May minus $0.10/MMBtu.
BP also submitted a bid for one May 14 to 16, 3.2 TBtu cargo into Krk, Croatia at
TTF Heren Month Ahead May minus $0.30/MMBtu.
Due to the lack of an associated derivative forward curve for Heren TTF Month
Ahead, Platts could not derive a fixed price equivalent for the bid and offer, and
they were therefore not used in the assessment.
This rationale applies to symbol(s) <AASXU00, AASXY00>
Exclusions: No exclusions
2
LNG DAILY MARCH 24, 2021

REPORTED ATLANTIC BIDS, OFFERS AND TRADES ($/MMBtu)

Date Seller Loading Buyer Basis Loading window Offer/Bid Notes
Best bids/offers
Mar 24 Krk Island, Croatia delivery BP DES May 14-16 May Heren TTF-0.30 bid MOC
Mar 24 BP Northwest Europe/N. Spain delivery DES May-14 May Heren TTF-0.15 offer MOC
Mar 24 BP Northwest Europe/N. Spain delivery DES Apr-27 May Heren TTF-0.10 offer MOC

REPORTED APAC BIDS, OFFERS AND TRADES ($/MMBtu)

Date Buyer Destination Seller Source Basis Delivery period Bid/Offer Notes
Best bids/offers
Mar 24 BP JKTC DES May 10-14 6.95 MOC
Mar 24 Trader JKTC DES mid-May 6.6 bid
Mar 24 JKTC Producer DES H1 May 6.85 bid
Mar 24 JKTC Producer DES H2 May 6.9-6.95 bid
Last 5 trades APAC
Mar 23 JKTC Sakhalin Energy Sakhalin DES April 21 load 6.7-6.8 DES Tender
Mar 23 Tohoku Electric Niigata or Shin-Sendai DES H1 May, H2 May 6.65-6.7, 6.7-6.8
DES Tender
Mar 18 JKTC Petronas Malaysia DES May 26-27, May 27-28 6.6-6.8 DES Tender
Mar 16 GAIL Dabhol DES April 16-21, May 2-4 6.4 and 6.2-6.3 DES Tender
Mar 16 KUFPEC JKTC Wheatstone DES May 1-5 loading 6.3-6.4 FOB Tender

Apr-Jul DES Europe, which closes March 25. NEWS

In the longer-term market, China’s Sinopec closed a 5-year, Brent-
linked buy-tender on March 22 for 1.5 MTPA of LNG deliveries starting in LNG spot shipping market not feeling impact
2022. — Kenneth Foo from Suez Canal incident
Atlantic market calms as Suez issue eases, London—The overnight running aground of an ultra large container
ship that has blocked maritime traffic on both sides of the Suez Canal
Novatek issues five cargo tender is unlikely to have a major impact on the LNG spot shipping market
London—The Atlantic market steadied towards European close following unless it is prolonged.
uncertainty at the start of the day, following news of a ship running “Not really,” answered a shipbroker when asked whether the
aground in the Suez Canal, causing a blockage through the canal. grounding of the Ever Given, a 200,000 tonne ship operated by
However, news of the vessel being partially refloated eased nerves and Evergreen, would affect the LNG spot shipping market. “It might take 2
led to a retracing of Eurogas through the day, following a morning spike. to 4 days to move the ship out of the way, some people even say it
Cargo traders were also relieved to not have to seek volume for might even be done today,” continued the shipbroker.
shorts into Europe on short notice as some would have been
potentially facing delays for Qatari volume into their slots.
Platts assessed the TTF May contract at $6.33/MMBtu, just under 2
cents/MMBtu up on-day with some support near European close owing
to a Norwegian outage and gains in the Brent crude market.
In tenders, Novatek was reported to have issued a five cargo DES
Europe tender for April to July delivery, closing March 25.
EDP closed a tender on March 24 for an H2 September delivery
cargo into Sines, however no result was reported.
In the Atlantic MOC, BP bid for a DES Krk Island cargo for May 14-16
delivery at TTF-$0.30/MMBtu. BP offered two DES Northwest Europe/
northern Spain delivery cargoes for May 14 and April 27 delivery at TTF-
$0.15/MMBtu and TTF-$0.10/MMBtu
In shipping, the Pacific ballast rate increased to 50% on the back of
higher pricing indications. The Atlantic shipping rate decreased to
$30,000/day while the Atlantic ballast rate increased to 100%, on the
back of higher indications and pricing heard from recent fixtures.
The Flex Courageous was heard fixed by Shell for an April US Gulf
load. Hire rate heard was $40,000/day with round-trip economics.
The Energy Atlantic was heard fixed by Glencore for around one
year, with the charter slated to begin shortly. Hire rate heard was in the
$50,000s/day. — Piers De Wilde

© 2021 S&P Global Platts, a division of S&P Global Inc. All rights reserved. 3
LNG DAILY MARCH 24, 2021
ASIA/MIDDLE EAST ($/MMBtu), MAR 24
DES Japan/Korea Marker (JKM)
JKM (May) AAOVQ00 6.924
JKM (H2 Apr) AAPSU00 6.950
JKM (H1 May) AAPSV00 6.919
JKM (H2 May) AAPSW00 6.929
JKM (H1 Jun) AAPXA00 6.975
Asian Dated Brent (16:30 Singapore) ADBAA00 10.59
JKM vs Henry Hub futures AAPRZ00 4.354
JKM vs NBP futures AAPSA00 0.677
JKM vs TTF LNTFJ00 0.594
JKM vs Asian Dated Brent (16:30 Singapore) AAPSB00 -3.668
JKM vs MED (16:30 London) ALNGB00 0.894
JKM vs NWE (16:30 London) ALNGA00 0.894
DES Japan/Korea (JKM) derivatives Singapore close
May LJKMO00 6.950
Jun LJKMO01 7.100
Jul LJKMO02 7.150
Aug LJKMO03 7.200
Q3 2021 LJKQR01 7.075
Q4 2021 LJKQR02 7.850
Winter 2021 LJKSN01 8.175
Summer 2022 LJKSN02 6.450
2022 LJKYR01 7.150
2023 LJKYR02 6.575
2024 LJKYR03 6.375
DES Japan/Korea (JKM) derivatives London close
May JKLMO00 6.850
Jun JKLMO01 6.950
Jul JKLMO02 7.050
Aug JKLMO03 7.100
Q3 2021 JKLQR01 7.100
Q4 2021 JKLQR02 7.865
Winter 2021 JKLSN01 8.100
Summer 2022 JKLSN02 6.475
2022 JKLYR01 7.175
2023 JKLYR02 6.525
2024 JKLYR03 6.325
FOB Middle East
FOB Middle East AARXQ00 6.500
DES West India Marker (WIM)
WIM (May) AARXS00 6.650
FOB Australia (netback)
JKM (May) AAOVQ00 6.924
(-) Freight AAUSA00 0.41
FOB Australia AARXR00 6.51
Key gas price benchmarks
Japan Customs Cleared LNG (Dec) LAKPN00 7.18 Final
Japan Customs Cleared LNG (Jan) LAKPM00 8.48 Estimated
Platts Dutch TTF
Apr GTFWM10 6.391
May GTFWM20 6.330
Competing fuel prices
Japan Customs Cleared crude oil (Dec) ($/b) AAKOP00 44.46 Final
Japan Customs Cleared crude oil (Jan) ($/b) AAKOM00 50.09 Estimated
HSFO 3.5% sulfur 180 CST FOB Singapore LUAXZ00 9.17
NEAT Coal Index JKTCB00 3.687
Minas crude oil LCABO00 9.809
Naphtha CFR Japan LNPHJ00 11.955
Notes: Japan Customs Cleared value shows latest available CIF price published by the Ministry of
Finance, converted to US dollars per MMBtu. All other values reflect Platts most recent one-month
forward assessments for each product in each region, converted to US dollars per MMBtu. JKM
Marker, SWE LNG and NWE LNG average the assessments of the two half-months comprising the
first full month of forward delivery. Asian LNG assessments assessed at Singapore market close
0830 GMT, European LNG assessment assessed at London market close 1630 UK time. NYMEX
Henry Hub futures and ICE NBP futures values taken at Singapore market close and London
market close. ICE NBP futures converted from Pence/Therm to $/MMBtu. Asian Dated Brent crude
oil assessed at Asian market close 0830 GMT and converted from $/barrel to $/MMBtu. Detailed
assessment methodology is found on www.platts.com.
© 2021 S&P Global Platts, a division of S&P Global Inc. All rights reserved. 4
EUROPE ($/MMBtu), MAR 24
$/MMBtu Eur/MWh Eur/MMBtu
DES Mediterranean Marker (MED)
MED (May) AASXY00 6.030 LNMTA00 17.372 LNMXA00 5.095
MED (H2 Apr) AASXZ00 6.141
MED (H1 May) AASYA00 6.030
MED (H2 May) AASYB00 6.030
Dated Brent (16:30 London) ADBAB00 10.97
MED vs Henry Hub futures AASYF00 3.459
MED vs TTF LNTFS00 -0.300
MED vs NBP futures AASYH00 -0.146
MED vs Dated Brent (16:30 London) AASYJ00 -4.942
MED vs NWE ALNSA00 0.000
MED vs JKM AASYM00 -0.894
DES Northwest Europe Marker (NWE)
NWE (May) AASXU00 6.030 LNNTA00 17.372 LNNXA00 5.095
NWE (H2 Apr) AASXV00 6.141
NWE (H1 May) AASXW00 6.030
NWE (H2 May) AASXX00 6.030
Dated Brent (16:30 London) ADBAB00 10.97
NWE vs Henry Hub futures AASYE00 3.459
NWE vs TTF LNTFN00 -0.300
NWE vs NBP futures AASYG00 -0.146
NWE vs Dated Brent (16:30 London) AASYI00 -4.942
NWE vs MED AASYK00 0.000
NWE vs JKM AASYL00 -0.894
NWE as a % of NBP AASYD00 97.63
Competing fuel prices
Northwest Europe fuel oil LAEGR00 10.34
CIF ARA 15-60 day thermal coal CSAAB00 2.97
NORTH AMERICA ($/MMBtu), MAR 24
FOB Gulf Coast Marker (GCM)
GCM (Apr) LGCSM01 5.680
GCM (H1 Apr) LUGCA01 5.675
GCM (H2 Apr) LUGCB02 5.685
GCM (H1 May) LUGCC03 5.735
Dated Brent (16:30 London) ADBAB00 10.97
GCM vs JKM LGMJM01 -1.244
GCM vs Henry Hub futures LGMHM01 3.162
GCM vs TTF LNTFG00 -0.711
GCM vs NWE LGEUR00 -0.350
GCM vs MED LGMET00 -0.350
GCM vs NBP futures LGMNM01 -0.794
GCM vs Dated Brent (16:30 London) LGMDB00 -5.292
GCM vs USGC HSFO LGMFO00 -2.700
Competing fuel prices
US Gulf Coast high sulfur fuel oil LUAXJ00 8.83
New York Harbor 1%S fuel oil LUAXD00 10.23
PLATTS WIM RLNG DAILY PRICES, MAR 24
$/MMBtu Rupee/MMBtu
Ex-Terminal
Dahej RLEDA00 7.68 RLEIA00 558.08
Hazira RLEDB00 7.82 RLEIB00 567.99
Dabhol RLEDC00 7.70 RLEIC00 559.23
Mundra RLEDE00 7.74 RLEEI00 561.95
Kochi RLEDD00 8.25 RLEDI00 599.13
Average RLEDF00 7.84 RLEIF00 569.28
Location
Ahmedabad RLDDJ00 8.20 RLDIJ00 595.21
Morbi RLDDK00 8.25 RLDIK00 599.08
Panvel RLDDL00 8.44 RLDIL00 612.62
Dabhol RLDDC00 8.44 RLDIC00 612.62
Vijaipur RLDDM00 8.38 RLDIM00 608.90
Kota RLDDN00 8.38 RLDIN00 608.90
Chhainsa RLDDO00 8.45 RLDIO00 613.68
Jagdishpur RLDDP00 8.45 RLDIP00 613.68
New Delhi RLDDQ00 8.45 RLDIQ00 613.68
Koottanad RLDDR00 8.91 RLDIR00 647.05
Kakinada RLDDS00 9.06 RLDIS00 657.76
Average RLDDT00 8.49 RLDIT00 616.65
Prices are net-forward calculations derived from the Platts WIM and exclude VAT and CST sales
taxes. Delivered prices represent the cost of delivery from the nearest connected LNG terminal via
pipeline.
LNG DAILY MARCH 24, 2021

RECENT TENDERS AND STRIPS

Tender/ Tender (Loading) or Slots/
strip Issuer/location type delivery period cargoes Opening Closing date Validity Notes Results
March 24
Tender Novatek - Yamal Sell 01-Apr-21 - 5 DES 25-Mar-21 DES Europe, April-July delivery.
31-Jul-21
Tender Tohoku Electric - Buy 10-May-21 - 1 DES 22-Mar-21 23-Mar-21 delivery to Niigata or Shin-Sendai Heard awarded $6.65-6.8/
Niigata 20-May-21 LNG terminal, with a GHV of MMBtu
1030-1150 Btu/cu ft and volume
of 3.0-3.5 TBtu, closes noon
March 23 Japan Standard Time
Tender GSPC - Dahej Buy 17-Apr-21 - 1 DES 22-Mar-21 Heard unawarded
25-Apr-21
Tender Darwin LNG - Sell (27-Apr-21 - 1 DES or 23-Mar-21 25-Mar-21 Apr 27-29 load 3.8 TBtu or May
Darwin 29-Apr-21) FOB 5-11 delivery 3.75 TBtu, closing
3pm SGT
Tender Adgas - ADNOC Sell (26-Apr-21 - 1 24-Mar-21
Das Island 28-Apr-21) Unknown
Tender Indian Oil Corp Buy 27-Apr-21 - 1 DES 24-Mar-21
(IOC) - Dahej 28-Apr-21
Tender Shenzhen Energy - Buy 02-May-21 - 1 DES 25-Mar-21
Shenzen Diefu 05-May-21
Tender PTT - Map Ta Phut Buy 27-Apr-21 - 3 DES 24-Mar-21 25-Mar-21 Apr 27-May 7, May 12-18, May
28-May-21 24-28 deliveries
Tender Calamari LNG - Buy 15-Apr-21 - 1 DES 26-Mar-21 26-Mar-21 partial cargo requested
Colombia 30-Apr-21
Tender PPT - Corpus Sell (11-May-21 - 1 FOB 18-Mar-21 Heard awarded around
Christi 11-May-21) 115%HH+$2.70-2.80/MMBtu
Tender Pertamina - Sell (30-May-21 - 1 FOB 18-Mar-21 Heard awarded around
Corpus Christi 30-May-21) 115%HH+$2.70-2.80/MMBtu
Tender Pakistan LNG - Buy 30-Apr-21 - 8 DES 30-Mar-21 31-Mar-21 Delivery window: April 30, May
Port Qasim 28-Jun-21 11-12, May 16-17, May 26-27,
May 31, June 8-9, June 18-19,
and June 27-28.
Tender GSPC - India Buy 01-Jul-21 - 12 DES 23-Mar-21
30-Jun-22
Tender Sakhalin Energy - Sell (21-Apr-21 - 1 DES or 23-Mar-21 2 week return voyage
Sakhalin 21-Apr-21) FOB
Tender Angola LNG - Sell 05-Apr-21 - 1 DES 24-Mar-21 25-Mar-21 Onboard Sonangol Benguela
Angola 08-May-21 DES Brazil, Europe, Mexico, India,
Pakistan, Singapore, furthest to
JKTC
Tender KPC - Kuwait Buy 27-Apr-21 - 1 DES 23-Mar-21
28-Apr-21
Tender Freeport - Sell (11-Jul-21 - 3 FOB 17-Mar-21 July 11, 31 and Aug. 24 load Heard awarded around 115%
Freeport 24-Aug-21) HH+$2.50/MMBtu
Tender EDP - Sines Buy 16-Sep-21 - 1 DES 18-Mar-21 24-Mar-21 H2 Sept. delivery
30-Sep-21
Tender IEASA - Escobar Buy 01-Apr-21 - 24 DES 16-Mar-21 18-Mar-21 partial cargoes requested BP heard awarded over half of
31-Aug-21 volume, other winners heard
include Naturgy, Total and
Gunvor
Tender Petronas - Sell 26-May-21 - 2 DES 18-Mar-21 From Bintulu: Apr 26-27 | PFLNG:
Malaysia 28-May-21 Apr 27-28 Closing 130pm KL
time

A charterer said it seemed to be rather calm.
A separate chartering source said, “It seems that it might be
resolved soon. I saw some photos that it’s now at the side of the
channel, but there are no verifications.”
A third charterer said QG (Qatargas) may get impacted depending
on how long it takes to get resolved, because going into the
Mediterrenian or Europe via the Suez Canal can save quite some time.
“Deliveries from Ras Laffan to Europe may have to go around the
Cape instead of via the Suez, if this gets prolonged,” explained the
charterer.
A spot voyage from Qatar into Northwest Europe takes around 16
days via the Suez, while going around the Cape of Good Hope would
take around 27 days.
The LNG tanker Woodside Charles Allen, which loaded at Cheniere
Energy’s Sabine Pass export terminal in Louisiana and shipped on
March 8, was in the Mediterranean Sea near the entrance to the Suez
Canal on March 24, according to cFlow, S&P Global Platts trade flow
software. Its captain’s destination was listed as awaiting orders.
LNG tankers heading from the US Gulf Coast to Asia generally pass
through the Panama Canal, as it is the shortest route. Sometimes they
opt to sail eastward, to avoid congestion and transit fees at the
Panama Canal.
The Cape of Good Hope and Suez will generally see increased
activity in shoulder periods as LNG charterers take advantage of the
contango in the curve. While the Suez route is faster than rounding the
Cape, the Suez has the advantage of greater optionality as it passes
over 80% of the world’s LNG demand on the way to the Japan-South
Korea region.
One LNG tanker that loaded at Sabine Pass was near the entrance
to the Panama Canal on March 24, while another LNG tanker that

© 2021 S&P Global Platts, a division of S&P Global Inc. All rights reserved. 5
LNG DAILY MARCH 24, 2021
loaded at Sabine Pass was passing through the Canal on March 24,
cFlow shows. Two more LNG tankers that loaded at Freeport LNG in
Texas were in the Pacific Ocean on March 24 after recently passing
through the Panama Canal.
Platts Analytics expects full dispatch economics out of the US to
continue in the months ahead, due to strong LNG market factors such as
supportive prices and low shipping costs. — Wyatt Wong, Harry Weber
Pakistan State Oil invites bids for two
LNG cargoes
Karachi—Pakistan State Oil, the country’s state-run retail oil supplier,
has invited offers for two LNG cargoes for the month of May in an
effort to secure supplies for the summer season ahead.
PSO has invited the offers for one cargo to delivered by May 20-21
and the second to be delivered by May 25-26, according to a document
received from the company.
The companies can submit their interest until April 20, the
document said.
The invitation of offers by PSO comes after Pakistan LNG Ltd. on
March 22 invited bids for eight cargoes to be delivered between April
and June, the document said.
Pakistan is speeding up its plans to import LNG ahead of the
summer season in an effort to reduce power cuts, said Tahir Abbas,
director research at Arif Habib Ltd., a Karachi based brokerage firm,
adding that electricity produced from furnace oil would be relatively
expensive compared with LNG. — Haris Zamir
Croatia receives third LNG cargo aboard vessel
from US: cFlow
■■Patris arrived at Croatian terminal on March 24
■■Allmid-term capacity booked at 2.6 Bcm/year site
■■Utility HEP held five-cargo tender in late 2020
The 2.6 Bcm/year capacity LNG import terminal in Croatia received its
third cargo on March 24, according to cFlow, Platts trade flow software,
with a cargo brought in from Freeport in the US aboard the Patris.
The LNG Croatia — a dedicated FSRU acting as a gateway for
international LNG supplies into Croatia and the southeast European
region for the first time — received its first cargo on Jan. 1 from the
Cove Point export terminal in the US, marking the start of operations.
A second cargo was delivered on March 2 aboard the Adam LNG
from Nigeria, which according to market sources was thought to be
part of a five-cargo tender held by Croatian utility HEP in late 2020.
A total of 1.88 Bcm of capacity has been booked at the Croatia
facility for the period Jan. 1-Sept. 30, 2021, with the full capacity of 2.6
Bcm/year booked for the following two gas years.
However, a spike in spot LNG prices in January saw cargoes pulled
to higher-priced markets instead of coming to Croatia.
Spot LNG prices have been hit by extreme price volatility over the
past year, with the JKM benchmark spot Asian LNG price hitting an all-
time low $1.825/MMBtu at the end of last April before rising to a record
high $32.50/MMBtu in mid-January.
© 2021 S&P Global Platts, a division of S&P Global Inc. All rights reserved.
SOUTH AMERICA ($/MMBtu), MAR 24
DES Brazil Netforward
DES Brazil (Apr) LEBMH01 6.260
DES Brazil vs NWE Fuel Oil Derivative LAARM01 -4.080
DES Brazil vs DES MED LNG LASWM01 0.230
DES Brazil vs Dated Brent LADBM01 -4.712
DES Brazil vs Henry Hub (16:30 London) LAHHM01 3.737
DES Brazil vs JKM (16:30 London) LAJKM01 -0.664
DES Brazil vs NBP (16:30 London) LABPM01 -0.214
NORTH AMERICAN FEEDGAS ($/MMBtu), MAR 23
Daily average US LNG feedgas cost ALNFG00 2.399
30-day moving average US LNG feedgas cost ALNUS00 4.387
Daily average USGC LNG feedgas cost ALNFH00 2.421
30-day moving average USGC LNG feedgas cost ALNUG00 4.549
Export facility Estimated feedgas cost
Sabine Pass ALNFA00 2.399
Corpus Christi ALNFB00 2.489
Cove Point ALNFC00 2.216
Cameron ALNFD00 2.399
Freeport ALNFE00 2.415
Elba Island ALNFF00 2.472
Facility feedgas costs represent a calculation derived from S&P Global Platts’ North American gas
spot price indices at the hub(s) from which feedgas would be procured most economically for the
export facility. The average summary costs are an average of the relevant export facilities’ feedgas
costs weighted by Platts Analytics’ daily estimated volume delivered to each facility.
US CARGO CANCELLATIONS, FEB 22
June 2020 35
July 2020 45
August 2020 45
September 2020 26
October 2020 9
November 2020 5
December 2020
January 2021
0
2
February 2021 5
March 2021 0
April 2021 0
May 2021 0
The figures are collected from market sources. If asterisked the figure is provisional, otherwise it
is the final estimate for cancellations for the stated month.
NATURAL GAS FUTURES ($/MMBtu), MAR 24
NYMEX HH Singapore close (Apr) AAPSD00 2.533
NYMEX HH Singapore close (May) AAPSE00 2.570
ICE NBP Singapore close (Apr) AAPSF00 6.550
ICE NBP Singapore close (May) AAPSG00 6.247
NYMEX HH London close (Apr 21) AASYN00 2.523
NYMEX HH London close (May 21) AASYO00 2.571
ICE NBP London close (Apr 21) AASYR00 6.474
ICE NBP London close (May 21) AASYS00 6.176
NYMEX HH US close (Apr 21) NMNG001 2.518
NYMEX HH US close (May 21) NMNG002 2.568
MARINE FUEL LNG BUNKER, MAR 24
$/MMBtu $/mt
Singapore LNBSG00 8.424 LNBSM00 325.529
Eur/MWh $/mt
Rotterdam LNBRT00 25.425 LNBRM00 340.684
MMBtu to $/mt factor: 38.643; MWh to $/mt factor: 11.322.
6
LNG DAILY MARCH 24, 2021

Prices have softened since then, with S&P Global Platts assessing
the front-month JKM price at $6.78/MMBtu on March 23.
Among those with capacity at the Croatian terminal are the
Croatian trading subsidiaries of Switzerland-based MET and Hungary’s
MFGK, Qatari-owned PowerGlobe Europe and HEP.
MFGK has already agreed a deal with Shell for 0.25 Bcm/year of
LNG supply into the Croatian terminal that will then be shipped onward
to Hungary.
HEP, meanwhile, is a key supplier of domestic gas in Croatia, while
PowerGlobe has more of a pure-play trading strategy and is looking to
expand its role by booking more import capacity in southern Europe.
Croatia LNG — a joint venture of HEP and Croatian grid operator
Plinacro — operates the FSRU project.
It confirmed the arrival of the Patris into the terminal on March 24
in a statement posted to its website. — Stuart Elliott
France’s Total resumes Mozambique LNG work
after security improvements
■■FirstLNG production still expected in 2024
■■25-km perimeter secured around Afungi site
■■Staff removed in January as insurgency escalated
London—France’s Total has resumed construction work at the site of
its Mozambique LNG project after security was beefed up following an
escalation of the Islamist insurgency in the country at the end of 2020.
Total decided at the start of 2021 to reduce the number of
personnel at the Afungi site in view of the security situation and a 25
km perimeter surrounding the project has now been set up as a special
security area.
The timetable for first LNG from the project — designed to have a
capacity of 13.1 million mt/year according to Total’s latest earnings
presentation — has been unaffected by the disruption, with first
cargoes still expected in 2024.
“The project will progressively resume construction activities at the
Afungi site following the implementation of additional site security
measures,” Total said in an emailed statement March 24.
“Total and the government of Mozambique have worked together
to define and implement an action plan with the objective of
reinforcing, in a sustained manner, the security of the Afungi site and
of the surrounding area and neighboring villages,” it said.
“A comprehensive roadmap has been defined and implemented,
allowing a gradual remobilization of the project workforce and the
resumption of LNG plant construction activities.”
21% complete
In February, Total CEO Patrick Pouyanne said the project, whose
capacity previously was pegged at 12.9 million mt/year, was 21%
complete as of the end of 2020.
Total operates Mozambique LNG with a 26.5% stake having taken
over the project in September 2019 as part of its deal with Occidental
to buy assets the US company acquired with its purchase of Anadarko.
Its partners are ENH (15%), Mitsui (20%), ONGC Videsh (10%), Beas
Rovuma Energy (10%), BPRL (10%), and PTTEP (8.5%).
Mozambique’s more than three-year-old insurgency saw militants
close in on the site of the project on the Afungi peninsula — also home
to ExxonMobil’s planned 15.2 million mt/year Rovuma LNG project — at
the end of 2020.
It highlights the continued security issues facing the southeast
(continued on page 9)

LNG DAILY
Houston
Luke Stobbart
Phone: +1-713-655-2275
Singapore
Global Director: Ciaran Roe
Kenneth Foo, Masanori Odaka,
Srijan Kanoi, Shermaine Ang
Phone: +65-6530-6467
London
Desmond Wong, Wyatt Wong,
Piers de Wilde, Michael Hoffmann
Phone: +44-20-7176-3506
Email
LNGeditorialteam@spglobal.com
Advertising
Tel: +1-720-264-6618
Contact Platts support: support@platts.com; Americas: +1-800-752-8878;
Europe & Middle East: +44-20-7176-6111; Asia Pacific: +65-6530-6430
LNG Daily is published daily by Platts, a division of S&P Global,
registered office: 55 Water Street, 37th Floor, New York, N.Y. 10038.
Officers of the Corporation: Richard E. Thornburgh, Non-Executive
Chairman; Doug Peterson, President and Chief Executive Officer;
Ewout Steenbergen, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer;
Steve Kemps, Executive Vice President, General Counsel
Platts President
Saugata Saha © 2021 S&P Global Platts, a division of S&P Global Inc. All rights
reserved.
The names “S&P Global Platts” and “Platts” and the S&P Global
Platts logo are trademarks of S&P Global Inc. Permission for any
commercial use of the S&P Global Platts logo must be granted in
writing by S&P Global Inc.
You may view or otherwise use the information, prices, indices,
assessments and other related information, graphs, tables and images
(“Data”) in this publication only for your personal use or, if you or your
company has a license for the Data from S&P Global Platts and you are
an authorized user, for your company’s internal business use only. You
may not publish, reproduce, extract, distribute, retransmit, resell,
create any derivative work from and/or otherwise provide access to
the Data or any portion thereof to any person (either within or outside
your company, including as part of or via any internal electronic
system or intranet), firm or entity, including any subsidiary, parent, or
other entity that is affiliated with your company, without S&P Global
Manager, Advertisement Sales
Bob Botelho Platts’ prior written consent or as otherwise authorized under license
from S&P Global Platts. Any use or distribution of the Data beyond the
express uses authorized in this paragraph above is subject to the
payment of additional fees to S&P Global Platts.
S&P Global Platts, its affiliates and all of their third-party licensors
disclaim any and all warranties, express or implied, including, but not
limited to, any warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular
purpose or use as to the Data, or the results obtained by its use or as
to the performance thereof. Data in this publication includes
independent and verifiable data collected from actual market
participants. Any user of the Data should not rely on any information
and/or assessment contained therein in making any investment,
trading, risk management or other decision. S&P Global Platts, its
affiliates and their third-party licensors do not guarantee the
adequacy, accuracy, timeliness and/or completeness of the Data or
any component thereof or any communications (whether written, oral,
electronic or in other format), and shall not be subject to any damages
or liability, including but not limited to any indirect, special, incidental,
punitive or consequential damages (including but not limited to, loss
of profits, trading losses and loss of goodwill).
ICE index data and NYMEX futures data used herein are provided under
S&P Global Platts’ commercial licensing agreements with ICE and with
NYMEX. You acknowledge that the ICE index data and NYMEX futures
data herein are confidential and are proprietary trade secrets and data
of ICE and NYMEX or its licensors/suppliers, and you shall use best
efforts to prevent the unauthorized publication, disclosure or copying
of the ICE index data and/or NYMEX futures data.
Permission is granted for those registered with the Copyright
Clearance Center (CCC) to copy material herein for internal reference
or personal use only, provided that appropriate payment is made to
the CCC, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, phone +1-978-750-
8400. Reproduction in any other form, or for any other purpose, is
forbidden without the express prior permission of S&P Global Inc. For
article reprints contact: The YGS Group, phone +1-717-505-9701 x105
(800-501-9571 from the U.S.).
For all other queries or requests pursuant to this notice, please
contact S&P Global Inc. via email at support@platts.com.

© 2021 S&P Global Platts, a division of S&P Global Inc. All rights reserved. 7
LNG DAILY MARCH 24, 2021

SHIPPING PRICES

SHIPPING RATES, MAR 24 FREIGHT ROUTE COSTS, MAR 24 ($/MMBtu)

$/day Asian discharge ports
Asia Pacific day rate AARXT00 30,000 Japan/Korea South China/Taiwan West India
Atlantic day rate AASYC00 30,000 Middle East AAUUA00 0.59 AAUSH00 0.52 AAUSP00 0.17
TCR Australia-Japan ATCRA00 23,571.43 Australia (Dampier) AAUSA00 0.41 AAUSI00 0.34 AAUSQ00 0.38
TCR USG-NWE ATCRB00 30,000.00 Australia (Gladstone) ACABA00 0.42 ACABB00 0.46 ACABC00 0.59
TCR USG-Japan ATCRC00 30,000.00 Bontang AOJKA00 0.28 AOCTA00 0.22 AOWIA00 0.35
Bintulu ABJKA00 0.31 ABCTA00 0.21 ABWIA00 0.35
$/MMBtu
Singapore ASJKA00 0.31 ASCTA00 0.21 ASWIA00 0.25
PLF1 Middle East-Japan/Korea AAUUA00 0.59 Tangguh ATJKA00 0.26 ATCTA00 0.23 ATWIA00 0.40
PLF2 Middle East-NWE AAUTE00 0.82 Trinidad via Suez AAUSB00 1.61 AAUSJ00 1.53 AAUSR00 1.11
PLF3 Trinidad-NWE AAUUC00 0.39 Trinidad via Panama AAUXB00 1.17 AAUZB00 1.38
Trinidad* AAUZC00 1.17 AAUZD00 1.38
Nigeria AAUSC00 1.32 AAUSK00 1.20 AAUSS00 0.91
Algeria AAUSD00 1.26 AAUSL00 1.18 AAUST00 0.79
SHIPPING RATES ($1000s/DAY) Belgium AAUSE00 1.42 AAUSM00 1.30 AAUSU00 0.90
Peru AAUSF00 0.82 AAUSN00 0.93 AAUSV00 1.00
300 Russia AAUSG00 0.18 AAUSO00 0.24 AAUSW00 0.54
Spain ACAAA00 1.33 ACAAB00 1.21 ACAAC00 0.85
250 Norway ACAAH00 1.61 ACAAI00 1.44 ACAAJ00 1.07
USGC* LAUVA00 1.25 LAUVB00 1.46 LAUVC00 1.23
200 USGC via Panama LAUVI00 1.25 LAUVL00 1.46
USGC via Suez LAUVJ00 1.78 LAUVM00 1.61 LAUVO00 1.23
Asia Pacific USGC via Cape LAUVK00 1.63 LAUVN00 1.50 LAUVP00 1.27
150 Atlantic
EMEA discharge ports
100 South West Europe North West Europe Kuwait/UAE
Middle East AAUSX00 0.76 AAUTE00 0.82 LMEMM00 0.12
50 Australia (Dampier) AAUSY00 1.04 AAUTF00 1.11 LMEMN00 0.46
Australia (Gladstone) ACABD00 1.25 ACABE00 1.33 ACABI00 0.67
0 Trinidad AAUSZ00 0.42 AAUUC00 0.39 LMEMP00 1.05
Mar-20 May-20 Jul-20 Sep-20 Nov-20 Jan-21 Mar-21 Nigeria AAUTA00 0.65 AAUTG00 0.65 LMEMQ00 1.17
Algeria AAUTB00 0.17 AAUTH00 0.24 LMEMR00 0.73
Source: S&P Global Platts Belgium AAUTC00 0.23 LMEMS00 0.88
Peru AAUTD00 0.87 AAUTI00 0.87 LMEMT00 1.08
Russia AAUUB00 1.20 AAUTJ00 1.24 LMEMU00 0.76
Spain ACAAD00 0.23 LMEMV00 0.79
SHIPPING CALCULATOR, MAR 24 Norway ACAAK00 0.35 ACAAL00 0.22 LMEMW00 1.01
Murmansk AARXW00 0.23
Australia- Middle East- USGC* LAUVD00 0.56 LAUVE00 0.53 LMEMX00 1.20
Japan/Korea India USGC via Suez LMEMY00 1.20
Ship size (mt) 72980.77 72980.77 USGC via Cape LMEMZ00 1.25
Trip length (days) 9 3 Americas discharge ports
Carrier day rate ($/day) 30000 30000
US Atlantic Coast Argentina Brazil
Day rate cost ($/MMBtu) 0.14 0.06
Middle East AAUTK00 0.80 AAUTS00 0.71 ACAAP00 0.85
Boil-off cost 0.14 0.05
Australia (Dampier) AAUTL00 0.72 AAUTT00 0.73 ACAAQ00 0.91
Bunker fuel ex-wharf 380 CST ($/mt) 368.75 395.00 Australia (Gladstone) ACABF00 0.90 ACABH00 0.65 ACABG00 0.82
Fuel oil cost ($/MMBtu) 0.04 0.01 Trinidad AAUTM00 0.23 AAUTU00 0.42 ACAAR00 0.32
Cost of voyage ($/MMBtu) 0.41 0.17 Nigeria AAUTN00 0.65 AAUTV00 0.65 ACAAS00 0.62
Algeria AAUTO00 0.35 AAUTW00 0.55 ACAAT00 0.52
Belgium AAUTP00 0.32 AAUTX00 0.62 ACAAU00 0.59
Peru AAUTQ00 0.62 AAUTY00 0.35 ACAAV00 0.55
Russia AAUTR00 1.06 AAUTZ00 0.90 ACAAW00 1.29
Spain ACAAE00 0.33 ACAAF00 0.58 ACAAG00 0.51

Analytics
Integrated, innovative.
Across geography Norway ACAAM00 0.36 ACAAN00 0.75 ACAAO00 0.75
and across commodity. USGC* LAUVG00 0.67 LAUVH00 0.57

Visit spglobal.com/analytics-insight
*Most economic.
All values calculated based on prevailing spot market values during the day for LNG, bunker fuel
and ship chartering. No route cost is calculated for Zeebrugge to NW Europe, or Spain to SW
Europe. Other routes appear blank on days when a public holiday in one or another location means
underlying values are not published. Detailed assessment methodology, including assumed route
times and underlying values, is found on www.platts.com.

© 2021 S&P Global Platts, a division of S&P Global Inc. All rights reserved. 8
LNG DAILY MARCH 24, 2021
African country and its fledgling LNG industry.
More than 30 million mt/year of LNG production capacity is under
development in Mozambique as the country looks to join the ranks of
the world’s biggest LNG exporters.
Militants stepped up attacks in the Palma district between the
Afungi peninsula and the militant-controlled port of Mocimboa da Praia
in recent months.
The port was occupied in mid-August as part of the growing
Islamist insurgency that began in October 2017.
A number of groups are now part of the insurgency — which also
spread to offshore tourist islands in the autumn — including the Ahlu
Sunnah Wa-Jamo (ASWJ) group and the Islamic State’s Central Africa
Province (ISCAP), which has declared Mocimboa da Praia as the capital
of its province. — Stuart Elliott
Suez Canal blockage sends ripples through
global commodity markets
Washington—One of the world’s biggest container vessels ran aground
in the Suez Canal late March 23, trigging a major scare in the global
commodity markets by blocking a critical transit chokepoint.
With the Ever Given vessel partially refloated by midday March 24,
market watchers were mostly expecting the shipping route to reopen
to traffic by late on March 24 or early the following day.
S&P Global Platts Analytics said the incident is unlikely to have any
long-term effects on shipping rates. But it added that the backlog of
vessels could take a minimum of five days to clear, with no impact on
short-term freight market fundamentals. Demurrage costs, which are
charged by shipowners to the consignee when transit is delayed, will
be the most likely mechanism to accommodate the delays to transiting
the Suez Canal, Platts Analytics said in a recent note.
The following is a round-up of the market impact and trade
implications of the ongoing Suez Canal blockage.
Prices and freight rates
Oil prices — which lost nearly $8/b in the week ended March 20 —
were lent some support on March 24 by the blockage to the waterway.
ICE May Brent crude futures were trading at $63.90/b as of 1607 GMT,
up $3.13/b from its previous settlement.
The spot Asia-Pacific LNG market was also up, as Suez Canal
transit uncertainties and lingering buying interest for May cargoes
drove bullish sentiment. The S&P Global Platts JKM for May was
assessed higher by 13.9 cents/MMBtu at $6.924/MMBtu on March 24.
The transit disruption on the LNG markets pushed sellers to raise their
offer levels for April and May cargoes.
The incident was already affecting freight rates on a wide range of
ships, with an immediate impact seen on containers and oil tankers.
Spot freight rates for a Suezmax shipping crude from the Persian Gulf
to the Mediterranean were assessed at Worldscale 23 on March 24, the
highest level since Feb. 2, according to Platts data. Freight rates in the
Mediterranean and Black Sea were also strengthening, with ships
stuck in the long traffic jam tightening tonnage, shipping sources said.
The Platts Container Rate 1 — North Asia-to-North Continent —
was heard at $9,500/FEU on March 24, up from $1,375/FEU a year
earlier, as logistical issues continue to bite.
© 2021 S&P Global Platts, a division of S&P Global Inc. All rights reserved.
Trade flows
The Suez Canal is one of the world’s most critical commodity
chokepoints, connecting the Red Sea with the Mediterranean. Almost
10% of total seaborne oil trade and 8% of global LNG trade passes
through the waterway, according to data from the US Energy
Information Administration.
In February, 338 oil tankers transited the canal, according to data
compiled by BIMCO and Leth Agencies. This compares with a monthly
average of 364 and 385 tankers in 2020 and 2019, respectively. A total
of 18,880 ships transited the canal in 2019, according to data from
Suez Canal Authority.
There are already close to 80 ships — including crude, product and
chemical tankers, dry bulk carriers and container vessels — waiting to
transit the canal from both sides, according to data from Platts tanker
tracking service cFlow. Meanwhile, in the Great Bitter Lake region —
which is just north of where the container ship grounded — there are
already 34 ships waiting to pass through.
Some of the oil tankers are carrying crude, such as Saudi Arabia’s Arab
Light and Arab Extra Light, Iraq’s Basrah Light and UAE’s Murban, and also
refined products including jet fuel and gasoil, according to cFlow.
Several container liners are looking to re-route cargoes via the
Cape of Good Hope in an attempt to keep cargoes moving, although
this will cause additional costs in the market. There are already
significant delays at European container ports owing to ongoing firm
demand and equipment shortages around the world, which have
pushed freight rates to all-time highs.
SUEZ CANAL SHIPPING TRAFFIC YET TO RECOVER
FROM PANDEMIC SLUMP
(number of ships) (average daily transits)
1500 45
1000 40
Oil tanker
Dry bulker
Container
500 35 ship
0 30
Feb-20 May-20 Aug-20 Nov-20 Feb-21
Source: Leth Agencies, BIMCO
Infrastructure
Key crude producers like Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iraq, the UAE,
Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Norway, Kuwait, Libya and Algeria rely on Suez
Canal to export their crude. Flows of petroleum products have also
risen in recent years. Europe sends a sizable amount of naphtha to
Asia every week, while large shipments of jet fuel and diesel come
from Asia and the Middle East into Europe.
The chokepoint is also critical for LNG. A hefty amount of Qatari
LNG destined for European markets passes through the waterway. But
Qatar has started to divert more cargoes to Asia in recent years.
Fully laden VLCC oil tankers cannot pass through the Suez Canal,
due to its width. However, Suezmaxes, Aframaxes, Medium Range 1 and
9
LNG DAILY MARCH 24, 2021
Medium Range 2, and Handysize tankers regularly navigate the canal.
Most exports of petroleum and natural gas from the Persian Gulf
that transit the Suez Canal, or the SUMED pipeline, also pass through
both the Bab-el-Mandeb and the Strait of Hormuz. Some 5.5 million b/d
of crude and oil products transited the Suez Canal, or the SUMED
pipeline in 2016, according to the EIA.
The Ever Given ran aground at about 0740 hours local time (0840
GMT) on March 23 after it suffered a blackout while transiting in a
northerly direction. The stranded vessel has a capacity of 20,000
twenty-foot equivalent units and is sailing under the Panama flag. The
ship continues to remain anchored at the southern end of the Suez
Canal, according to cFlow. The Ever Given loaded from the Chinese port
of Yantian on March 8 and was on its way to Rotterdam in the
Netherlands before the incident. Representatives at Taiwan-based
Evergreen Maritime — the ship’s operators — were not immediately
available for comment.
— Eklavya Gupte, Robert Perkins, Tom Washington
METI commission finds no wrongdoing by
utilities during Japan’s winter power shortages
■■Nowithholding of electricity sales
■■Power utilities’ fuel restrictions justifiable
■■LNG stocks drop 40% over month from mid-Dec: METI
Tokyo—Japan’s Electricity and Gas Market Surveillance Commission
said March 24 it has not found any wrongdoing by major power utilities
in their electricity supply to spot markets or in their fuel restrictions
during the country’s recent winter power supply shortages.
The findings, which were presented during the commission’s
© 2021 S&P Global Platts, a division of S&P Global Inc. All rights reserved.
expert meeting, will pave the way for the Ministry of Economy, Trade
and Industry to conclude its examination of the power utilities’
response to January’s tightened supply and demand power balance.
The Electricity and Gas Market Surveillance Commission’s findings
followed its investigation into the major power utilities’ electricity supply
situation, which included a Feb. 25 public hearing with the utilities.
The surveillance commission’s probe aimed to look into the utilities’
electricity sales and purchases as well as their fuel restrictions over
December to January to verify whether there was any wrongdoing.
Under fair electricity trade guidelines issued by the Japan Fair
Trade Commission any act of withholding sales with an intention to
raise a price to a level, which cannot be explained by market
fundamentals, could be seen as an incidence of market manipulation.
However, following its scrutiny of collected information, the
surveillance commission said March 24 it has not found any evidence
that Japan’s major power utilities acted to withhold sales.
Findings
According to its analysis of the utilities’ potential electricity supply
volumes versus their actually sold electricity volumes, the surveillance
commission has confirmed that the utilities did indeed supply all of
their surplus electricity during spot electricity tenders in the
December-January period.
The surveillance commission did not find that utilities overestimated
their electricity demand, with deviations between their estimated and
actual demand averaging 1.1% during the two-month period.
The commission also focused its probe into the power utilities’
fuels restrictions, on the grounds that reduced LNG and oil stocks had
caused these restrictions and reduced electricity sales tenders after
mid-December.
However, following its examination of the power utilities’
“justifiability on fuel restrictions” and the “validity” of their fuel
operations, the commission said it has confirmed that the utilities’ fuel
restrictions were taken based on their stated methodologies, including
the lowest limits in tank operations, inventories, shipping schedules
and demand outlook.
Robust demand
METI has said the spike in spot electricity prices in January was
due to a combination of increased power demand from cold spells,
decreased gas-fired power output from reduced LNG inventories and
electricity being sold out on the wholesale market.
Japan’s power demand rose 7.6% year on year to 86,427 GWh in
January, after having risen 8% year on year in the second half of December
to 43,189 GWh amid cold spells in the country, according to METI.
METI has said LNG restrictions by power utilities were imposed
because power demand in the first half of January had risen to its
highest level in five years as average nationwide temperatures dropped
to 2 degrees Celsius below the 30-year averages.
LNG stocks held by power utilities also dropped by around 40%
over the course of a month from mid-December, which led to utilities
restricting LNG thermal power generation amid difficulties in building
LNG inventories in the face of strong demand in East Asia, coupled
with shipping constraints in the Panama Canal, according to METI.
10
LNG DAILY MARCH 24, 2021
The fuel restrictions for thermal power generation also came at a
time when Japan had decommissioned and mothballed about 10 GW of
oil-fired power capacity in the five years to fiscal year 2019-20 (April-
March), METI said.
In line with increased power demand, Japan’s spot electricity
prices on the wholesale market rose to an all-time high of Yen 251/kWh
on Jan. 15, although it then fell back significantly after METI approved a
special action to cap the imbalance tariff at Yen 200/kWh from Jan. 17
onwards. — Takeo Kumagai
Port of Singapore sees Asia’s first
ship-to-containership LNG bunkering
■■CMA CGM ship fueled with 7,100 cu m of LNG from FueLNG Bellina
■■Firstship-to-ship operation for FueLNG Bellina
■■IMO GHG emission cut targets supportive for LNG bunkering: FGE
Singapore—The Port of Singapore has set the stage for Asia’s first
ship-to-containership LNG bunkering operation — which was
undertaken by global shipping company CMA CGM, Singapore’s
FueLNG and the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore on March 24
— paving the way for further development of LNG as a marine fuel in
the world’s largest bunkering port.
“The use of more sustainable fuels is an important element of the
decarbonization strategy. As the shipping industry explores alternative
zero-carbon fuels, LNG is a viable transitional fuel,” Senior Minister of
State for Transport and Foreign Affairs Chee Hong Tat said.
As part of the bunkering operation, the CMA CGM Scandola was
fueled with 7,100 cu m of LNG from FueLNG Bellina, Singapore’s first
LNG bunkering vessel, marking the first simultaneous cargo and LNG
bunkering operations for a ship in Asia, a joint statement read March 24.
The CMA CGM Scandola is the first of six new 15,000-TEU LNG-
powered containerships, which CMA CGM Group has lined-up to be
bunkered in Singapore this year. These ships will be deployed on CMA
CGM’s MEX 1 service between Asia and the Mediterranean.
It is also the first vessel in Asia to conduct simultaneous container
loading and discharging operations alongside LNG bunkering
operations, shortening port stay time.
Meanwhile, this is also the first ship-to-ship operation for FueLNG
Bellina, the statement read.
FueLNG — a joint venture between Keppel Offshore & Marine Ltd. and
Shell Eastern Petroleum (Pte) Ltd. — aims to provide a total of about 30 to
50 ship-to-ship LNG bunkering operations in 2021, after having performed
over 300 truck-to-ship LNG bunkering operations so far, it said.
“We have a number of ships lined up for FueLNG Bellina’s next
bunkering operations, reflecting the strong demand for LNG bunkering
in Singapore,” Chris Ong, chairman of FueLNG and CEO of Keppel O&M,
said in the same statement.
LNG bunkering potential
According to Shell’s 2020 LNG outlook report, global LNG bunkering
demand is estimated to grow to 30-50 million tons per annum (mtpa)
by 2040.
Singapore, for its part, is actively encouraging vessels which call at its
© 2021 S&P Global Platts, a division of S&P Global Inc. All rights reserved.
port to use cleaner fuels such as LNG, by providing them with port dues
concessions, and co-funding building of LNG-fueled bunker tankers.
“Vessels using LNG as a fuel should be comparatively more robust
in addressing the financial impact of any CO2 levy potentially imposed
in the future,” Tahir Faruqui, director FueLNG and head of Shell
Downstream LNG, said in the same statement.
This comes at a time when decarbonization objectives in
international shipping are gaining more traction after a fairly
successful transition to the International Maritime Organization’s global
low sulfur mandate.
LNG enables a reduction of 99% in sulfur dioxide, 91% in particulate
matter emissions and 92% in nitrogen oxide emissions. LNG also
provides an initial solution to the challenge of tackling climate change.
An LNG-powered vessel emits up to 20% less CO2 than conventional
marine fuel-powered systems, according to the statement.
In April 2018, the IMO laid out its strategy on GHG emissions, aiming
to cut the shipping industry’s total GHG emissions by at least 50% from
2008 levels by 2050, and reduce CO2 emissions per transport work by
at least 40% by 2030.
In November 2020, the IMO’s marine environment protection
committee strengthened the Energy Efficiency Design Index, or EEDI,
Phase 3 requirements.
Meanwhile, several industry sources on March 23 said separately at
the 12th International Fujairah Bunkering & Fuel Oil Virtual Forum 2021,
or FUJCON 2021, organized by Conference Connection that LNG will
definitely play a significant role in the bunker fuel mix going forward
due to its ready availability as well as an increasing LNG infrastructure
at various ports worldwide.
There is also a genuine interest for LNG bunkering because of the
newbuilds coming into the market as the economics of retrofitting a
ship to run off LNG is much more expensive, an industry expert, said at
the same event.
Also at FUJCON 2021, FGE Chairman Fereidun Fesharakai said that
IMO GHG emission cut targets were supportive for LNG bunkering.
In order to achieve the 2050 target, global oil-based marine fuel
demand has to peak before 2025, while LNG demand should be
expanded swiftly, he said.
LNG bunkering demand for non-LNG carriers is expected to be 15
million tons by 2030 and will reach 27 million tons by 2040, reflecting
continued strong growth post-2030, he said. — Surabhi Sahu
Judges quiz FERC on climate explanations
in Rio Grande LNG approval orders
■■DC Circuit weighs challenges to Brownsville, Texas, projects
■■Question posed about remedy if court finds against FERC
Washington—The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission faced
questioning from appeals court judges March 23 about whether it
adequately explained why it declined to consider the significance of
greenhouse gas emissions associated with the Rio Grande LNG project
in Brownsville, Texas.
The probing from DC Circuit Court of Appeals judges came during
oral argument March 23 on FERC orders approving the 27 million mt/
11
LNG DAILY MARCH 24, 2021
year Rio Grande project and the 4 million mt/year Texas LNG project, as
well as the recently scrapped 6 million mt/year Annova LNG project.
The three projects, which would be sited along the Brownsville Ship
Channel, were part of a wave of proposed LNG export facilities that
cleared the FERC process in 2019 and which had been vying for offtake
contracts generally needed to finance construction.
Also drawing scrutiny from the judges was the adequacy of
analysis of cumulative impacts for Texas LNG and how FERC assessed
environmental justice impacts of the facilities and related ozone
emissions.
‘Why isn’t it cited?’
During the Rio Grande argument, Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan
pressed FERC about its decision not to use the social cost of carbon
tool to determine whether climate impacts of the project were
significant.
At issue was whether FERC did enough to explain why it was not
required to use the tool under a White House Council on Environmental
Quality regulation, in light of Sierra Club’s argument that it should have
done so.
“Why isn’t it cited in the brief at all, because, especially in the Rio
Grande case, …the entire argument, is rested on the regulation,”
Srinivasan asked.
Sierra Club Senior Attorney Nathan Matthews had argued that a
CEQ rule set a floor establishing that in the absence of other analyses,
an agency could not refuse to use a method generally accepted in the
scientific community; and he said FERC, in a remand order on the
Sabal Trail Transmission project, had conceded that the social cost of
carbon was generally accepted.
As to where FERC laid out its reasoning, Robert Kennedy, counsel
for FERC, pointed to a case that was cited in the footnote of FERC’s
rehearing order on Rio Grande. He also highlighted FERC’s view that
the social cost of carbon is not an accepted tool for use in project-
specific analysis.
Judges also explored FERC’s findings that the Rio Grande project
did not disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations,
asking how FERC picked the geographic area and comparison
populations to study, in light of Sierra Club’s argument that FERC
defined the affected community arbitrarily narrowly.
Kennedy said FERC’s use of the two-mile radius was
consistent with an Environmental Protection Agency guideline
suggesting that a wide area could dissipate the impacts. FERC
reasoned that because all affected communities included in the
zone were environmental justice communities, impacts will not
be disproportionately concentrated. In addition, it looked at
whether there were factors unique to communities that would
amplify the effects.
© 2021 S&P Global Platts, a division of S&P Global Inc. All rights reserved.
Regulatory certainty
At one point in the argument, Judge Douglas Ginsburg questioned
Rio Grande’s counsel, John Longstreth, about the appropriate remedy
— vacatur or remand — should the court reverse FERC on orders
approving the project.
If FERC were to vacate the certificate, Longstreth replied, “we
would no longer have a permit in place and people looking to invest in
the project, customers looking to do business with it would be less
likely to deal with a project if it didn’t have a permit.”
Separately, in the Texas LNG case, justices questioned whether
there was adequate explanation of combined impacts of projects on
ozone pollution, even though that issue was more fully explored in the
Rio Grande order. — Maya Weber
LNG Shipping weekly: Atlantic and Pacific
rates increase
London—Atlantic shipping and ballast rates increased to $32,000/day
and 75%, respectively, from $31,000/day and 50% during the seven
days to March 23.
The Pacific ballast rate increased to 50% from 25% during the
same period, while the Pacific shipping rate was unchanged at
$30,000/day.
In the Pacific, eight cold TFDE or DFDE tankers were marketed for
loading from now until the H2 April, sources said. The Maran Gas
Delphi, Cool Explorer, Wilpride, Golar Seal, and a Gaslog vessel were
mentioned among them.
GDLNG was said to have issued a vessel inquiry for three voyages,
starting with an April 25 load from Withnell Bay. Re-delivery was heard
to be around June 12, upon completion of discharge at Dapeng
terminal. Vessel capacity heard sought was 125,000 to 145,000 cu m.
Offers were heard due on March 24.
Osaka Gas was also said by sources to be seeking to charter a
vessel for 8-12 months from May/June.
In the Atlantic, three TFDE or DFDE vessel were marketed for
Atlantic loading from now right until H2 April. The BW Paris and Gaslog
Skagen were mentioned among them.
IOC was said to have issued a vessel requirement for one May 21-23
Cameroon load, delivery to Dahej or Ennore. The minimum vessel
capacity being sought was 145,000 cu m, while the charter period
sought was 30-45 days. Offers were due by March 30, with validity on
April 10, sources said.
Tokyo Gas was said to have issued a vessel requirement starting
around mid-May in the US Gulf. Four different fixed charter periods
were sought — one, two, three and five years, followed by two optional
one-year charters. A vessel capacity of 165,000 cu m or above was
sought according to one source. — Wyatt Wong
12
LNG DAILY MARCH 24, 2021

SHIPPING RECAP AND DELIVERIES, MAR. 17 - MAR. 23

Delivered Delivered
Vessel Capacity Source Load date port/country date Commentary
Methane Lydon 145,000 Damietta 03/10/21 Zeebrugge/Belgium 03/21/21 ENI spot voyage
Volney
Golar Ice 160,000 Corpus Christi 02/28/21 Sines/Portugal 03/18/21 Gunvor-controlled vessel delivers cargo
Golar Snow 160,000 Idku 03/14/21 Rovigo/Italy 03/17/21 Gunvor-controlled vessel delivers cargo
Gaslog Chelsea 153,000 Arzew 03/14/21 Rotterdam/ 03/19/21 Glencore-controlled vessel delivers cargo
Netherlands
Trinity Glory 154,000 Darwin 03/06/21 Dangjin/Korea 03/19/21 Jera-controlled vessel delivers cargo
Maran Gas Coronis 146,000 Darwin 03/12/21 Jiangsu/China 03/22/21 PCI-controlled vessel delivers cargo
Maran Gas Alexandria 162,000 Corpus Christi 03/07/21 Dunkirk/France 03/22/21 Jera spot voyage
BW Tulip 173,000 Cameron 03/07/21 Mejillones/Chile 03/22/21 Total-controlled vessel delivers cargo
Flex Enterprise 172,000 Gorgon 03/14/21 Nagoya/Japan 03/23/21 Chevron-controlled vessel delivers cargo
Gaslog Santiago 155,000 Das Island 03/11/21 Dabhol/India 03/23/21 Trafigura-controlled vessel delivers cargo
Maran Gas Delphi 160,000 Corpus 02/11/21 Tianjin/China 03/24/21 Cheniere spot voyage
Grace Cosmos 150,000 Dampier 03/10/21 Dapeng/China 03/17/21 GDLNG spot voyage
Global Star 174,000 Gladstone 03/13/21 Zhoushan/China 03/23/21 Shell-controlled vessel delivers cargo
Dorado LNG 174,000 Gladstone 03/07/21 Ningbo/China 03/19/21 Shell-controlled vessel delivers cargo
Beidou Star 172,000 Sabine Pass 02/22/21 Kochi/India 03/22/21 Gunvor-controlled vessel delivers cargo

RECENT FIXTURES, MAR. 17 - MAR. 23

Vessel Capacity Note
Flex Volunteer 174,000 BP spot fixture mid-April US Gulf load. Hire rate heard was $40,000/day.
Ibri LNG 145,000 Gunvor fixture until Q1 2022. Hire rate heard was in the low to mid-$20,000s/day.
Pskov 170,000 Total fixture for up to 12 months starting around early May in India. Hire rate heard was in the mid-$50,000s/day.
Golar Arctic 141,000 Heard on subjects for mid-April Angola load. Hire rate heard was slightly less than low-$20,000s/day with 100% ballast bonus for redelivery.
Neo Energy 150,000 Gunvor one-year fixture. Hire rate heard in the $20,000s/day
Wilforce 156,000 Panocean spot voyage for mid-April Gladstone load. Hire rate heard at $26,000/day
Maran Gas Sparta 162,000 Socar sublet to BHP for mid-April NWS load, delivering to JKTC. Hire rate heard at low-$30,000s/day with 75% ballast bonus to hub
BW Pavilion Aranda 174,000 Total fixture for USGC load. Hire rate heard at $35,000/day
Source: S&P Global Platts

SUBSCRIBER NOTES
Platts to make several changes to its hydrogen methodology Rockies Hydrogen PEM Electrolysis Capital Cost $937 $1,439
After a period of open consultation, S&P Global Platts will make several changes Southeast Hydrogen PEM Electrolysis Capital Cost $924 $1,419
to its hydrogen assessments that will refine its treatment of capital expenses, as Southern California Hydrogen PEM Electrolysis Capital Cost $1,044 $1,603
well as adjust some operational parameters of the various production pathways. Upper Midwest Hydrogen PEM Electrolysis Capital Cost $980 $1,505
These changes stem from Platts’s quarterly methodology review of its hydrogen Japan Hydrogen PEM Electrolysis Capital Cost $1,800 $2,073
assessments, as well as industry feedback and a review of the assessment Alberta Hydrogen Alkaline Electrolysis Capital Cost $1,066 $1,025
methodology by an independent energy consultant. Chief among these Appalachia Hydrogen Alkaline Electrolysis Capital Cost $742 $941
changes is the adoption of a fixed charge rate for the calculation of capital Midcontinent Hydrogen Alkaline Electrolysis Capital Cost $720 $914
expenses, which is the product of a capital recovery factor and a project finance Northeast Hydrogen Alkaline Electrolysis Capital Cost $763 $968
factor. This change will more accurately incorporate inflation, depreciation, Northern California Hydrogen Alkaline Electrolysis $832 $1,056
return on equity, debt service, insurance as well as income and property taxes. Capital Cost
In addition, the capital costs ($/KW) for the electrolysis production pathways Northwest Hydrogen Alkaline Electrolysis Capital Cost $756 $959
proton exchange membrane (PEM) electrolysis and alkaline electrolysis will be Rockies Hydrogen Alkaline Electrolysis Capital Cost $731 $928
increased, from $900/KW for PEM electrolysis to $1,382/KW; and from $702/KW Southeast Hydrogen Alkaline Electrolysis Capital Cost $721 $915
for alkaline electrolysis to $891/KW. These changes will more closely align with Southern California Hydrogen Alkaline Electrolysis $815 $1,034
the technology-specific capital costs listed in the International Energy Agency’s Capital Cost
2019 Future of Hydrogen report (IEA FoH). Upper Midwest Hydrogen Alkaline Electrolysis Capital Cost $764 $970
This change will directly affect the Netherlands and US Gulf Coast electrolysis Japan Hydrogen Alkaline Electrolysis Capital Cost $1,404 $1,336
assessments, and indirectly affect Japan and the remainder of the North Other changes include an adjustment for plant efficiencies, based on
American electrolysis assessments, whose capital costs will change as follows: technology-specific assumptions listed in the IEA FoH report, as follows: steam
Electrolysis Capital Costs ($/KW) Current Proposed methane reforming (SMR), from 70% to 76%; SMR with carbon capture (CCS),
Alberta Hydrogen PEM Electrolysis Capital Cost $1,367 $1,589 from 63% to 69%; and alkaline electrolysis, from 65% to 66.5%.
Appalachia Hydrogen PEM Electrolysis Capital Cost $951 $1,460 The cost of stack refurbishment as a percent of capital cost will also be
Midcontinent Hydrogen PEM Electrolysis Capital Cost $923 $1,417 increased from 15% to 35% for PEM electrolysis, and from 15% to 45% for
Northeast Hydrogen PEM Electrolysis Capital Cost $978 $1,502 alkaline electrolysis, based on technology-specific production costs cited in the
Northern California Hydrogen PEM Electrolysis Capital Cost $1,066 $1,637 IEA FoH report.
Northwest Hydrogen PEM Electrolysis Capital Cost $969 $1,488 Platts will also adjust the percentage of Dutch peak and base electricity prices

© 2021 S&P Global Platts, a division of S&P Global Inc. All rights reserved. 13
LNG DAILY MARCH 24, 2021
used in the Netherlands hydrogen assessments from the current 80% base and
20% peak, to 50% peak and 50% base.
In addition, Platts will change its method for calculating carbon dioxide
emissions, with relevance to the Netherlands (SMR, and SMR w CCS) and
California (SMR) assessments, by using the emission factor of 8.9 kg CO2/kg
H2, as listed in the IEA FoH report.
Finally, Platts will adjust the cadence of its methodology review from quarterly
to annual, to accommodate the annual release of the US National Renewable
Energy Laboratorys Annual Technology Baseline report, which contains a
number of the financial assumptions used in the revised hydrogen methodology
as proposed.
The changes will take effect on April 1, 2021.
Please send any comments to hydrogenassessments@spglobal.com and
pricegroup@spglobal.com. For written comments, please provide a clear
indication if comments are not intended for publication by Platts for public
viewing. Platts will consider all comments received and will make comments
not marked as confidential available upon request.
Platts to launch new UK hydrogen assessments
After a period of public consultation, S&P Global Platts has decided to assess
the cost of hydrogen production in the United Kingdom.
In its new suite of hydrogen assessments, Platts will consider the daily cost of
hydrogen production via three pathways: Autothermal reforming with carbon
capture (ATR w CCS), proton exchange membrane (PEM) electrolysis and
alkaline electrolysis.The assessments will launch April 1, 2021.
The UK hydrogen assessments will consider the feedstock costs alone, as well
as a second set of assessments that will include assumptions for capital
expenses (CapEx). Assessments will be made in GBP/kg and GBP/KWh.
The assumptions for ATR w CCS costs will be based on industry research,
including an H-Vision reported titled “Blue hydrogen as accelerator and pioneer
for energy transition in the industry,” published 2019.
Electrolysis assumptions will be based on the existing Platts methodology, and
will incorporate the same changes as currently proposed in a separate
methodology update.
Daily inputs will include the month-ahead National Balancing Point assessment;
the month-ahead UK GTMA base and peak power assessments, a UK water
price, and the quarterly EC carbon auction spot average as a proxy for UK
carbon costs.
The assessments and their respective Platts symbols will be named as follows:
Hydrogen UK ATR w CCS (GBP/Kg) HYUKA00
Hydrogen UK ATR w CCS (Incl. CapEx) (GBP/Kg) HYUKB00
Hydrogen UK ATR w CCS (GBP/KWh) HYUKC00
Hydrogen UK ATR w CCS (Incl. CapEx) (GBP/KWh) HYUKD00
Hydrogen UK PEM Electrolysis (GBP/Kg) HYUKE00
Hydrogen UK PEM Electrolysis (incl CAPEX) (GBP/Kg) HYUKF00
Hydrogen UK PEM Electrolysis (GBP/KWh) HYUKG00
Hydrogen UK PEM Electrolysis (incl CAPEX) (GBP/KWh) HYUKH00
Hydrogen UK Alkaline Electrolysis (GBP/Kg) HYUKI00
Hydrogen UK Alkaline Electrolysis (incl CAPEX) (GBP/Kg) HYUKJ00
Hydrogen UK Alkaline Electrolysis (GBP/KWh) HYUKK00
Hydrogen UK Alkaline Electrolysis (incl CAPEX) (GBP/KWh) HYUKL00
Please send any comments to hydrogenassessments@spglobal.com and
pricegroup@spglobal.com.
For written comments, please provide a clear indication if comments are not
intended for publication by Platts for public viewing. Platts will consider all
comments received and will make comments not marked as confidential
available upon request.
SUBSCRIBER NOTE: Customs duties in Platts European price assessments
S&P Global Platts would like to clarify its publishing guidelines around customs
duties in contract terms ahead of potential changes in tariffs related to the UK’s
exit from the European Union.
Platts assessments reflect commodities traded under standard contract terms,
typically including references to international commercial terms such as FOB,
© 2021 S&P Global Platts, a division of S&P Global Inc. All rights reserved. 14
CIF, CFR, DES and DAP.
Among other items, these terms state the responsibilities for payments of
costs among buyers and sellers, including import customs duties and taxes. As
such, where Platts assessments state duty-unpaid terms including CIF, CFR,
DES and DAP, these reflect bids, offers and trades wherein the seller is not
responsible for payment of import duties, including in the event that tariff
structures change subsequent to a reported trade.
Should buyers wish to submit for publication bids for Delivered Duty Paid terms,
Platts may consider these for publication and normalize them to a duty unpaid
standard for reflection in CIF, CFR, DES and DAP assessments.
Please send any comments or questions to pricegroup@spglobal.com
For written comments, please provide a clear indication if comments are not
intended for publication by Platts for public viewing. Platts will consider all
comments received and will make comments not marked as confidential
available upon request.
Platts proposes to change assessed period of LNG DES Brazil
Netforward marker
S&P Global Platts is proposing to change the assessed period of the LNG DES
Brazil Netforward marker, effective June 1, 2021.
This follows from an ongoing Platts proposal to change the loading period for
the Gulf Coast Marker, which is used in the derivation of the DES Brazil
Netforward. Consequently, this proposal is contingent on the GCM proposal
becoming part of Platts methodology.
Details of the proposed changes to the Gulf Coast Marker can be found here:
https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/our-methodology/subscriber-notes/031521-
platts-proposes-changing-loading-period-for-lng-gulf-coast-marker.
The DES Brazil Netforward currently reflects cargo delivery either in the third
and fourth or fourth and fifth half-month cycles forward from the date of
publication.
This proposal would see the netforward assessed using the GCM assessment
plus a freight period of 13 days using the assessed freight rate from the US Gulf
Coast to Brazil (daily price database code LAUVH00).
Going forward, therefore, the DES Brazil Netforward would represent cargoes
being delivered to Brazil 13 days after the GCM loading period, or 43-73 days
ahead of the date of publication.
Assessments that would be affected appear in LNG Daily, Platts LNG Alert pages
2820, 2821, Platts Natural Gas Alert pages 1052, 1053 and under the Platts price
database codes below:
Assessments Code Monthly average
DES Brazil Netforward Mo01 LEBMH01 LEBMH31
DES Brazil Netforward vs ARA Fuel Oil LAARM01 LAAR003
DES Brazil Netforward vs DES MED LNG LASWM01 LASW003
DES Brazil Netforward vs Dated Brent LADBM01 LADB003
DES Brazil Netforward vs Henry Hub LAHHM01 LAHH003
DES Brazil Netforward vs JKM LAJKM01 LAJK003
DES Brazil Netforward vs NBP LABPM01 LABP003
Please send any questions, comments or feedback to
LNGeditorialteam@spglobal.com and pricegroup@spglobal.com by April 15,
2021.
For written comments, please provide a clear indication if comments are not
intended for publication by Platts for public viewing. Platts will consider all
comments received and will make comments not marked as confidential
available upon request.
Platts proposes to database North American LNG cargo cancellations
S&P Global Platts is proposing to database the monthly North American LNG
cargo cancellations reported to Platts by market participants, effective April 20.
Currently, data collected from the market about North American cargo
cancellations is published monthly in a table on page 6 of Platts LNG Daily.
Under the proposal, Platts would continue to publish cancellations reported for
the period two months ahead of the month of reporting on the 20th of each
month, with the latest information databased under a symbol code. In the event
the 20th falls on a weekend or holiday, this information will be published the
next business day.
LNG DAILY MARCH 24, 2021

For example, on April 20, 2021, cancellations for June-loading cargoes would be
reported under the new symbol code.
Please send any questions, comments or feedback to
LNGeditorialteam@spglobal.com and pricegroup@spglobal.com by March 29.
For written comments, please provide a clear indication if comments are not
intended for publication by Platts for public viewing. Platts will consider all
comments received and will make comments not marked as confidential
available upon request.
Platts proposes changing loading period for LNG Gulf Coast Marker
S&P Global Platts is proposing to change the loading period for the Gulf Coast
Marker to reflect LNG cargoes loading from the US Gulf Coast 30-60 days
forward from the date of publication, effective June 1, 2021.
Platts is also proposing to discontinue the publication of the second, third and
fourth half-month cycles from June 1, 2021, due to the proposed change in the
assessed laycan of the GCM to a rolling loading window.
Currently, Platts assesses LNG cargoes for loading from the US Gulf Coast in
three half-month cycles, namely the second, third and fourth half-month cycles
forward from the date of publication. The GCM spot cargo assessment
(LGCSM01) represents the average of the two half-month cycles, which
comprise the first full month of loading, and rolls on the first business day of
the month to reflect cargoes loading in the following month.
Under the proposal, the GCM spot cargo assessment would reflect cargoes
loading 30-60 days forward from the date of publication, which Platts
understands to be broadly typical in the spot market. For example, on March 1,
the value of cargoes loading between March 31 and April 30 would be assessed,
while on March 2, the assessment period would change to between April 1 and
May 1.
This proposal follows an analysis of the market data published by Platts relating
to LNG spot cargoes trading on FOB US Gulf Coast basis, which is the market
and location GCM reflects.
The affected assessments appear in LNG Daily, Gas Daily Mexico, Platts LNG
Alert pages 2810, 2811, Platts Natural Gas Alert pages 1034, 1045 and under the
Platts price database codes below:
Assessments Code Monthly average
LNG FOB GCM spot cargo Mo01 LGCSM01 LGGCM31
LNG FOB GCM 1 Half-Month LUGCA01 LUGCA31
LNG FOB GCM 2 Half-Month LUGCB02 LUGCB32
LNG FOB GCM 3 Half-Month LUGCC03 LUGCC33
Please send any questions, comments or feedback to
LNGeditorialteam@spglobal.com and pricegroup@spglobal.com by April 9, 2021.
For written comments, please provide a clear indication if comments are not
intended for publication by Platts for public viewing. Platts will consider all
comments received and will make comments not marked as confidential
available upon request.

© 2021 S&P Global Platts, a division of S&P Global Inc. All rights reserved. 15
LNG DAILY MARCH 24, 2021

HYDROGEN

NORTH AMERICA HYDROGEN ASSESSMENTS, MARCH 23*
Excluding Capex Including Capex
Production Pathway $/kg Change $/kg Change
Alberta (C$/kg)
SMR w/o CCS 0.47 +0.03 1.69 +0.04
Alkaline Electrolysis 3.84 +2.21 5.22 +2.22
PEM Electrolysis 4.30 +2.48 6.28 +2.49
JAPAN HYDROGEN ASSESSMENTS, MARCH 23*
Excluding Capex Including Capex
Production Pathway Yen/kg Change Yen/kg Change
SMR w/o CCS 136.61 +5.24 305.29 +5.24
Alkaline Electrolysis 309.25 -7.69 499.45 -7.69
PEM Electrolysis 346.57 -8.62 619.86 -8.62
*Assessed previous day

Appalachia
SMR w/o CCS 0.33 +0.01 1.32 +0.01
NETHERLANDS HYDROGEN INCLUDING CAPEX
Alkaline Electrolysis 1.26 -0.08 2.27 -0.08 (Eur/kg)
5
PEM Electrolysis 1.42 -0.08 2.87 -0.08
Gulf Coast PEM
SMR w/o CCS 0.41 0.00 1.25 0.00 4 Electrolysis
Alkaline Electrolysis 1.39 +0.27 2.35 +0.27 Alkaline
PEM Electrolysis 1.55 +0.30 2.92 +0.30 Electrolysis
Midcontinent 3
SMR w CCS
SMR w/o CCS 0.37 0.00 1.26 0.00 (inc. carbon)
Alkaline Electrolysis 0.60 +0.02 1.58 +0.02 month ahead
2
PEM Electrolysis 0.67 +0.02 2.07 +0.02 SMR w/o CCS
Northeast (inc. carbon)
SMR w/o CCS 0.36 +0.01 1.42 +0.01 month ahead
1
Alkaline Electrolysis 1.26 -0.03 2.29 -0.03 11-Feb 17-Feb 23-Feb 01-Mar 05-Mar 11-Mar 17-Mar 23-Mar
PEM Electrolysis 1.41 -0.03 2.90 -0.03 Source: S&P Global Platts
Northern California
SMR w/o CCS 0.77 0.00 1.99 0.00 CALIFORNIA ELECTROLYSIS INCLUDING CAPEX
Alkaline Electrolysis 1.44 +0.01 2.57 +0.01 ($/kg)
PEM Electrolysis 1.61 +0.01 3.23 +0.01 30
Northwest
SMR w/o CCS 0.41 0.00 1.91 +0.02 N. Calif.
Alkaline Electrolysis 1.43 +0.35 2.46 +0.35 PEM
PEM Electrolysis 1.60 +0.39 3.07 +0.39 20
S. Calif.
Rockies PEM
SMR w/o CCS 0.39 0.00 1.32 0.00
N. Calif.
Alkaline Electrolysis 1.30 +0.29 2.29 +0.29 10 Alkaline
PEM Electrolysis 1.46 +0.32 2.89 +0.32
Southeast S. Calif.
Alkaline
SMR w/o CCS 0.41 -0.01 1.28 -0.01
Alkaline Electrolysis 1.07 -0.17 2.05 -0.17 0
10-Feb 17-Feb 23-Feb 01-Mar 05-Mar 11-Mar 17-Mar 23-Mar
PEM Electrolysis 1.20 -0.19 2.60 -0.19
Southern California Source: S&P Global Platts
SMR w/o CCS 0.64 0.00 1.81 0.00
NATURAL GASLNG
Alkaline Electrolysis 1.33 +0.09 2.43 +0.09
PEM Electrolysis 1.49 +0.10 3.08 +0.10 ($/MMBtu)
30
Upper Midwest
SMR w/o CCS 0.41 +0.01 1.36 +0.01
Alkaline Electrolysis 1.14 -0.20 2.18 -0.20
PEM Electrolysis 1.28 -0.22 2.78 -0.22 20
JKM
*Assessed previous day
TTF
Henry Hub
NETHERLANDS HYDROGEN ASSESSMENTS, MARCH 23 10

Production Pathway Eur/kg Change Eur/KWh Change

SMR w/o CCS 0.9552 +0.0110 0.0287 +0.0004
SMR w/o CCS (inc. Capex) 1.3999 +0.0136 0.0420 +0.0004
0
SMR w/o CCS (inc. Carbon) 1.1895 +0.0109 0.0357 +0.0003 11-Feb 17-Feb 23-Feb 01-Mar 05-Mar 11-Mar 17-Mar 23-Mar
SMR w/o CCS (inc. Capex & Carbon) 1.6342 +0.0135 0.0490 +0.0004
SMR w CCS 1.0518 +0.0121 0.0316 +0.0004 Source: S&P Global Platts
SMR w CCS (inc. Capex) 1.7764 +0.0164 0.0533 +0.0005
SMR w CCS (inc. Carbon) 1.0777 +0.0121 0.0323 +0.0003 ASSESSMENT RATIONALE
SMR w CCS (inc. Capex & Carbon) 1.8023 +0.0164 0.0541 +0.0005
Alkaline Electrolysis 2.6224 +0.0108 0.0787 +0.0003
The daily and month ahead hydrogen assessments are valuations that incorporate fixed
Alkaline Electrolysis (inc. Capex) 3.4059 +0.0153 0.1022 +0.0005 capital and operating costs and variable natural gas, electricity, and carbon prices. Details
PEM Electrolysis 2.9354 +0.0120 0.0881 +0.0004 on hydrogen methodology can be found at https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/our-
PEM Electrolysis (inc. Capex) 4.0613 +0.0187 0.1219 +0.0006 methodology/methodology-specifications/electric-power/hydrogen-methodology

© 2021 S&P Global Platts, a division of S&P Global Inc. All rights reserved. 16