For global natural gas producers, no country is as important to their future as China. An expected surge in demand over the coming two decades from China is underpinning billions of dollars of investment in new liquefied natural gas (LNG) plants around the world, pipeline projects from its neighbours and unconventional gasfields at home. But demand has slowed markedly over the past 18 months casting doubt over the pace of future growth.

After years of double-digit expansion, the pace of China’s gas demand growth slowed to 8.6% in 2014. And that slow growth has continued into this year. Year-on-year growth was just 7% over the first three months of this year and demand actually fell by 6% in April.

The sharp slowdown has defied expectations of robust natural gas demand growth.

24 Comments on "China’s natural gas demand sputters"

Speculawyer on Thu, 18th Jun 2015 7:17 pm 



Why would they buy (expensive) LNG when they are going to get gas from Russia via pipeline?

Nony on Thu, 18th Jun 2015 8:14 pm 



Why eat dinner tonight when you are having a ham for Xmas in December?

(Think dude, think!)

GregT on Thu, 18th Jun 2015 8:23 pm 



Why even worry about having a ham for christmas, if you plan on poisoning yourself tonight?

(Think Nony, think!)

Makati1 on Thu, 18th Jun 2015 10:28 pm 



Speculawyer, you are correct. LNG is twice the cost of piped gas. The Chinese are not stupid. After all, they have been around 5,000 years to the West’s less than 500 and seem to be doing fine these days, if you don’t read US propaganda.

ALWAYS consider the source of your information.

Company Information:
“Petroleum Economist is a division of Euromoney Global Ltd. Euromoney Global is a unit of London-listed Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC.”

rockman on Fri, 19th Jun 2015 8:33 am 



“But demand has slowed markedly over the past 18 months…”

Not according to the EIA: “Estimates for the first half of 2014 show LNG imports growing at faster levels than in previous years.”

And according to Platts the “sputtering” tag is absolute bullsh*t: “China imported 1.98 million mt of natural gas via pipeline in March, 41.3% higher than the same month last year. The increase was largely due to a 26.3% increase in inflows from Turkmenistan.

Amvet on Fri, 19th Jun 2015 9:27 am 



What is the problem? Demand growth reduction does not mean demand reduction.
A 6% increase in a giant market is MORE, LOTS MORE.

Ted Wilson on Fri, 19th Jun 2015 9:56 am 



China’s Oil consumption increased 3.3% and Natgas increased 8.6%.

Yes the gas consumption growth slowed down because they are following reasons.
Big increase in
Hydro, Nuclear, Wind and Solar power that cut the need for natgas fired power generation.

Also every incandescent bulb being replaced with LED bulb could cut down power consumption by 85%. Now you do the Math.

But expect Natgas to continue to increase as the NGVs are increasing rapidly.

Baptised on Fri, 19th Jun 2015 11:48 am 



I agree with Rockman, Amvet, and Ted Wilson. Media has lost touch with ethics, too much thinking in derivative’s, and Chinese know what their doing compared to everyone else.

Nony on Fri, 19th Jun 2015 12:46 pm 



LNG export from the US is going to happen. This is not a paper program. It’s billions of dollars of heavy metal.

https://rbnenergy.com/begin-the-sabine-delivering-gas-to-the-lower-48-s-first-lng-export-terminal

Davy on Fri, 19th Jun 2015 12:49 pm 



NOo, seems to me Alaska needs to be the big LNG exporter.

Nony on Fri, 19th Jun 2015 1:08 pm 



They have Kenai (only US LNG export terminal) now. But I think they need more capacity. Lot of stranded gas. I don’t know the economics though. Wish they would open ANWR for drilling. Need more oil for the pipeline.

Davy on Fri, 19th Jun 2015 1:42 pm 



I new about Kanai but I would think a large facility for all the stranded gas in Alaska would be an answer. I have heard Anwar is likely mostly gas.

Nony on Fri, 19th Jun 2015 2:10 pm 



An average estimate of 10 billion barrels of extractable oil. 95% certainty that it is more than 5 billion. 95% certainty that it is less than 15 billion.

http://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/arctic_national_wildlife_refuge/html/analysisdiscussion.html#anwr%20coastal%20plain%20assessment

Feds are blocking even seismic surveys, let alone wells for coring or actual production tests. All you have is some old 2D seismic and one secret well by Chevron. Based on the 2D seismic and the location near Prudhoe Bay and really just analogy to other sedimentary basins, estimates are of a huge resource. Of course, more exploration could make the estimate go up or down. That’s the benefit of testing and learning.

GregT on Fri, 19th Jun 2015 2:40 pm 



Today, escalating human populations have vastly exceeded global carrying capacity and now produce massive quantities of solid, liquid, and gaseous waste. Biological diversity is being threatened by over-exploitation, toxic pollution, agricultural mono-culture, invasive species, competition, habitat destruction, urban sprawl, oceanic acidification, ozone depletion, global warming, and climate change. It’s a runaway train of ecological calamities.

It’s a train that carries all the earth’s species as unwilling passengers with humans as the manically insane engineers unwilling to use the brake pedal.

We need to stop burning fossil fuels and utilize only wind, water, and solar power with all generation of power coming from individual or small community units like windmills, waterwheels, and solar panels.

http://www.seashepherd.fr/news-and-media/editorial-070504-1.html

Boat on Sat, 20th Jun 2015 2:28 am 



Growth slowing to 8.6% is a massive amount of growth, not sputtering demand. If I remember right the US nat gas grew by 6.7% last year which is massive growth.
Growing nat gas is expensive,labor intensive and happens over long periods of time.
Most of energy growth is like that. Like the demise of coal and nuclear. Nat gas is chipping away at market share but it is not a fast process even though nat gas prices are more competitive.

GregT on Sat, 20th Jun 2015 3:02 am 



Infinite exponential growth in a finite environment is a mathematical and physical impossibility. Anybody who is still spouting the growth nonsense at this point, is a complete moron.

rockman on Sat, 20th Jun 2015 7:00 am 



“LNG export from the US is going to happen.” I’m not sure how that’s relevant to this thread. Other than, of course, that both China and the USA currently are net NG importers. Which means that should we beginning exporting a lot of LNG we may have less NG for domestic consumption.

The Marcellus has done a terrific job of increasing US production. And yet we still consume more NG then we produce.

Baptised on Sat, 20th Jun 2015 10:07 am 



If we must stay under a economic system of growth, which is deeply engrossed in the majority. Shouldn’t 1-2% growth be the best. After all we are talking about finite supplies to keep it going? Plus bigger growth numbers overwhelmingly just help the one’s at the very top that really don’t need help.

Baptised on Sat, 20th Jun 2015 10:18 am 



Rockman 99% of statements on this whole site are really mute. Because the hard fact that USA is a NG & oil importer. So that HARSH fact is ignored and the talk continues.

GregT on Sat, 20th Jun 2015 11:00 am 



“If we must stay under a economic system of growth, which is deeply engrossed in the majority. Shouldn’t 1-2% growth be the best.”

1-2% growth is not enough to keep the current monetary and financial systems from collapsing Baptised. Besides, even at a 2% rate of growth the entire system must double in both input and output in ~35 years. Al Bartlett was correct, human beings are unable to understand the exponential function. Why such simple arithmetic is so hard for people to understand, is absolutely mind boggling.

Nony on Sat, 20th Jun 2015 12:46 pm 



“The Marcellus has done a terrific job of increasing US production. And yet we still consume more NG then we produce.”

Net imports have been cut in half, and are very minor now, about 10%. And that is at the same time that volume consumed has gone up 25%. Once we get enough trains running and become a net exporter, I am going to remind you…

It’s coming, baby. Heavy metal, heavy metal. Sabine is not a paper project. And the Marcellus has KICKED your ass out of the shallow Gulf gas drilling. Oh…and Berman and Rogers and Hughes have been butt stomped by the Marcellus and shale gas in general.

Baptised on Sun, 21st Jun 2015 12:18 am 



GregT 2% growth is 1 times larger in 50 years 1% 100 years. When people speak of “the rate” of growth. That is not exponential. That is the 1st derivative in calculus.

GregT on Sun, 21st Jun 2015 1:27 am 



What the heck are you talking about Baptised? Economic growth is calculated on an annual basis. If a 2% annual rate of growth is maintained, the doubling period is ~35 years. If a 1% annual growth rate is maintained the doubling period is ~70 years. Constant growth over time is defined as exponential growth.

Google ‘rule of 70’.

Boat on Sun, 21st Jun 2015 5:26 am 



Rock, It just takes a lot of time to build out infrastructure for nat gas. If I remember right the export ports being built will allow about 4-5% of US nat gas to be shipped. No problem for the plethora that came with fracking. Republicans are upset with Obama, they want more ports faster.