TYNDP 2013-2022 conceptSJWS #7 – conclusion on TYNDP concept

TYNDP 2013-2022 Stakeholder Joint Working Session – 29 May 2012

TYNDP concept

2

Assessment of the European gas infrastructure system> Being a network development plan, TYNDP focuses on infrastructures> Supply adequacy outlook has to be checked at aggregated European level and at local

one (balancing zone) as demand and supply levels and locations have a direct influence on the need of infrastructures

> Considered scenarios/cases have to be stressful but still realistic> Top-down layer enabling the identification of trends and impacts that cannot be

identified at national level because of a very meshed European network> Results consist in:

• Indicators assessing SoS, Market Integration…• Identification of investment gaps hampering demand cover

ENTSOG TYNDP is not> A forecast> An assessment of the good implementation of market rules> A strategic study of producing/transit countries

Process timeline

3

From concept to reality> Concept derived from previous TYNDP consultation, ACER’s opinion and SJWSs> It will be presented and explained during June WS to facilitate future understanding> Data collection and report drafting can then start based on a mature concept

ENTSOG TYNDP 2013-2022 ENTSOG TYNDP 2013-2022TYNDP Concept S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D Report edition J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M JLaunch of TYNDP 2013-2022 process ModellingTYNDP Workshop SimulationInternal preparation Result analysisSJWS Macro-analysisS&D, SoS, Mkt Int, Infra & Model Country profilesConcept approval Infrastructure projectsINV WG opinion Supply-demand balanceBoard approval Report editingConcept presentation Layout and structure definitionTYNDP Workshop Report consistence monitoringData collection process S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D Release process and consultation J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M JInfrastructure projects Release processData collection process INV WG opinionData checking Board approval & GA approvalExisting infrastructure and demand Public releaseData collection process Public consultationData checking Public consultationSupply TYNDP follow-up workshopData investigation Responses analysisScenario and case generation Board approvalScenario and case generation Formal submission to ACER

2011 2012 2012 2013

Report structure

4

Aggregated supply adequacy outlook> Demand scenarios> Supply scenarios

European gas infrastructure> Overview of current system> Infrastructure scenarios translated into mixed network-market topology

Infrastructure assessment> Definition of cases and methodologies> Investment gap identification> Indicators assessing level of SoS and Market Integration

Annexes> Detailed country and project profiles> Input and output data from the assessment

European gas infrastructure

5

Overview of current situation

Basis for better understanding of future investment use/need> Ease the comparison for the feeling of missing infrastructure under current

market conditions and under an optimized use of infrastructures> Provide background to infrastructure projects

Similar information than the ones provided by Syst. Dev. map> Reference 2009, 2010 & 2011> Information at aggregated cross-border level> Information provided on seasonal or yearly basis:

• Average flow• Maximum flow

6

DEnNP

UGS

LNG

NO

BEx

UKxIEx NLx

LUx

DEgFRn

FRs

FRt

ESxPTx

CHx

ITx

DKx

SEx

ATx

SIx

CZx

PLg

HRx

HUx

RSx

SKx

PLy

ROx ROt

BGx

FYx

GRx

UA

BY

LTx

EEx

FIx

KL

RU

LVx

TK

AL

LY

UGS, LNG & NP nodes, control nodes and arcs to all E/E systems

Network-market topology

Actual topology depends on the year and infrastructure scenario

UGS and LNG terminal modelling

LNG dual role> LNG terminal send-out should consider the dual role of the facilities:

• The imports • The storage

> LNG tank management (including stock level prior to the event) has to be defined for the 2-week case

> These elements are to be discussed with GLE

UGS curve> Last Summer and Winter Supply Outlooks use a single and conservative deliverability

curve (linked to stock level) for every country> Potential improvement has to be considered with GSE

8

Scenarios & Cases

9

Scenario vs. Case

10

2 kind of scenarios> Follow the evolution of one variable

during the time> Pathways: e.g. Roadmaps> Forecast: e.g. best estimate

2012 2022 2050

Demand

Peaks 2-week peak Average

2017 cases

Cases are derived from scenario> Average day> 2-week peak> Daily peaks

Scenario comparison

Considered scenarios and cases

11

Considered scenarios> Demand scenarios: TSO, Primes, Eurogas> Supply scenarios: Minimum, medium and maximum> Infrastructure scenarios: Existing infra. + FID & Existing infra. + FID + non-FID

Different parameter setting when defining cases

Demand Supply Events

Design Case Reference BY disruption

Simultaneous peak Predominant UA disruption

2-week simultaneous peak Minimum NO disruption (specific infra. to be defined)

Yearly average AL1 (through Tunisia)

AL2 (through Morocco)

LNG (update of GLE study)

12

> Definition of a maximum, medium and minimum supply potential by source based on publicly available data from governmental and other sources.

> These levels are defined at yearly level. For the analysis they have been translated in the daily averages.

Supply potential

Upper limit: Test of Market Integration

Upper limit flexibility

Matrix of cases - Reference

13

Duration Occurrence Disruption UGS deliverability1 20132 20173 20224 20135 20176 20227 20138 20179 202210 201311 201712 202213 201714 202215 201716 202217 201718 202219 201720 2022

Event

Design Case

ReferenceNone

FID

Year

non-FID

1 day

Average

Design Case

Simultaneous Case

Reference Case

Simultaneous Case

Year Average

1 day

2 Weeks

2 Weeks

Demand CaseSupply source mixScenario Year Infra. Cluster

Not limited

Not limited

Minimum

Minimum

Matrix of cases - SoS

14

Duration Occurrence Disruption UGS deliverability21 NO22 BY23 UA24 AL 125 AL 226 LNG27 None Minimum28 NO29 BY30 UA31 AL 132 AL 233 LNG34 None Minimum35 NO36 BY37 UA38 AL39 LY40 LNG41 NO42 BY43 UA44 AL 145 AL 246 LNG47 None Minimum48 NO49 BY50 UA51 AL 152 AL 253 LNG54 None Minimum55 NO56 BY57 UA58 AL 159 AL 260 LNG61 NO62 BY63 UA64 AL 165 AL 266 LNG67 None Minimum68 NO69 BY70 UA

Not limited

Crisis supply

non-FID 1 day

Simultaneous Case

SoS

2017

2 weeks Minimum

Design CaseNot limited

Simultaneous Case

Not limited

2 weeks Minimum

FID

1 day

Design CaseNot limited

2013 FID

1 day

Design CaseNot limited

Simultaneous Case

Not limited

Supply source mixScenario Year Infra. ClusterDemand Case Event

Duration Occurrence Disruption UGS deliverability71 AL 172 AL 273 LNG74 None Minimum75 NO76 BY77 UA78 AL 179 AL 280 LNG81 NO82 BY83 UA84 AL 185 AL 286 LNG87 None Minimum88 NO89 BY90 UA91 AL 192 AL 293 LNG94 None Minimum95 NO96 BY97 UA98 AL 199 AL 2

100 LNG101 NO102 BY103 UA104 AL 1105 AL 2106 LNG107 None Minimum108 NO109 BY110 UA111 AL 1112 AL 2113 LNG114 None Minimum115 NO116 BY117 UA118 AL 1119 AL 2120 LNG

Scenario Year Infra. ClusterDemand Case

Supply source mix

Not limited

Crisis supply

Event

non-FID

1 day

Simultaneous Case

SoS

2017

1 day

Design CaseNot limited

Simultaneous Case

Not limited

2 weeks Minimum

2022

FID

1 day

Design CaseNot limited

Simultaneous Case

Not limited

2 weeks Minimum

non-FID

2 weeks Minimum

Matrix of cases – Market Integration

15

Duration Occurrence Disruption UGS deliverability121 max NO even122 max NO max123 max RU even124 max RU max125 max AL even126 max AL max127 max LY even128 max LY max129 max LNG even130 max LNG max131 min NO 132 min RU 133 min AL 134 min LY 135 min LNG 136 max NO even137 max NO max138 max RU even139 max RU max140 max AL even141 max AL max142 max LY even143 max LY max144 max LNG even145 max LNG max146 min NO 147 min RU 148 min AL 149 min LY 150 min LNG 151 max NO even152 max NO max153 max RU even154 max RU max155 max AL even156 max AL max157 max LY even158 max LY max159 max LNG even

Average None Not used

FID

2017

non-FID

2013 FID

Market Integration

Year

Supply source mixScenario Year Infra. ClusterDemand Case Event

Duration Occurrence Disruption UGS deliverability160 max LNG max161 min NO 162 min RU 163 min AL 164 min LY 165 min LNG 166 max NO even167 max NO max168 max RU even169 max RU max170 max AL even171 max AL max172 max LY even173 max LY max174 max LNG even175 max LNG max176 min NO 177 min RU 178 min AL 179 min LY 180 min LNG 181 max NO even182 max NO max183 max RU even184 max RU max185 max AL even186 max AL max187 max LY even188 max LY max189 max LNG even190 max LNG max191 max CA even192 max CA max193 min NO 194 min RU 195 min AL 196 min LY 197 min LNG 198 min CA

Supply source mixScenario Year Infra. ClusterDemand Case Event

Year Average None Not used

2022

FID

non-FID

2017

Market Integration

non-FID

198 cases to compare to the 67 of TYNDP 2011-2020

Infrastructure assessment

16

Applied methodologies per case

17

Reference and disruption cases> Calculation of Remaining Flexibility per entry/exit zone> Investment gap and remedy identification

Minimum UGS deliverability cases> Calculation of Remaining Flexibility per entry/exit zone> Identification of systems where withdraw rates should be higher> Calculation of required withdraw rates (stock levels) to face the event

Market integration> Supply maximization: even reach and multiple maximum reach

• Identification of infrastructure preventing to reach a given supply share in every country (if any limitation)

> Supply minimization: even reduction• Identification of infrastructure preventing (if any limitation) to reach the lower limit

> Supply/Route diversification index defined by country for both maximum and even reach

Remaining flexibility & investment gapsRemaining flexibility indicator> It is defined at 2 levels:

• Infrastructure:

• System level:

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

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

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

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

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

provided by project promoters (without priority)

18

Dependence to flow pattern

High

Medium

Gap and remedy identification

19

FID case Non-FID Case

Country Rem. Flex

Curtailed demand

Congestion Remedy Rem. Flex

Curtailed demand

CC1 1-5%Tra.: UGS:LNG:

Tra.:UGS:LNG:

5-10%

CC2 <1% 20 GWh/dTra.:UGS:LNG:

Tra.:UGS:LNG:

<1% 10 GWh/d

CC3

<1% 50 GWh/d

Tra.:UGS:LNG:

Tra.:UGS:LNG:

1-5%

CC4Tra.:UGS:LNG:

Tra.:UGS:LNG:

<1% 50 GWh/d

CC5Tra.:UGS:LNG:

Tra.:UGS:LNG:

Remedies will be identified if within the list of submitted infrastructure projects.Specific reference will be made to the project to ease the reading

Indicators(still to be discussed with stakeholders)

20

Supply diversification

21

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

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

spreads> Which is the minimum share of a given source

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

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

Route diversification

22

ENtry Capacity Concentration index> Based on the same logic than HHI but calculated on the share of an entry capacity

in the total entry > A supply diversification index may be defined the same way using the flows

coming from supply sources but index will then depend on flow pattern (which could be mitigated through a sensitivity study)

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

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

of cross-borders

100% 40%

30%

20%

10%

ENCC=100²= 10 000

ENCC=40²+30²+20²+10²= 3000

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

Range of infrastructure use in the cases

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

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

> Range would be defined base on the highest and lowest load factor of the 198 simulations (not considering Reference Cases)

23

> Actual use may be outside these ranges

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

SupplyDefinition of the reference case

24

25

New approach: a more realistic reference cases

Definition of Potential levels of SupplyDaily average>Supply shares by source:

> Average 2009-2010-2011 on the ENTSOG historical data base.>Supply shares by route:

> The import flows by route are proportional to the historical utilization of the routes – average 2009-2010-2011.

Peak Day

>A certain share of LNG is treated as pipeline gas -> Daily minimum LNG import. The remaining LNG import capacity, as well as the UGS are used as last resource sources, with common load factors.>The pipeline imports are defined by the historical daily maximums by source (or by route).

Definition of the reference caseAVERAGE DAY

26

Average daily supply share – Reference Case

27

Iteration 0 Iteration 1

GWh/d   2011 2015 2020 2020

Demand   1000 1200 1400 1400

National ProductionPotential 300 250 200 200Actual share 300 250 200 200

Net Demand   700 950 1200 1200

Supply APotential 600 700 800 800Actual share 400 (57%) 543 (57%) 687 (57%) 700 (58%)

Supply BPotential 400 450 500 500Actual share 300 (43%) 407 (43%) 513 (43%) 500 (42%)

Supply balance 0 0 0 0

28

New approach: a more realistic reference cases

Definition of Potential levels of SupplyDaily average>Supply shares by source:

> Average 2009-2010-2011 on the ENTSOG historical data base.>Supply shares by route:

> The import flows by route are proportional to the historical utilization of the routes – average 2009-2010-2011.

Peak Day

>A certain share of LNG is treated as pipeline gas -> Daily minimum LNG import. The remaining LNG import capacity, as well as the UGS are used as last resource sources, with common load factors.>The pipeline imports are defined by the historical daily maximums by source (or by route).

29

Daily Average: Supply shares by Source> Starting point: Average 2009-2010-2011

> Libyan exception: Avoid the effect of Libyan disruption, it’s contribution to the supply share measured by the average 2009-2010

> Small changes in the supply shares by source:

• Lower share:• Norway• Algeria

• Higher share:• LNG

30

Daily Average: Supply shares by Source

> Supply potential level by source: Medium supply potential

Dark colours: Average shares 2008-2009 Light colours: Average shares 2009-2010-2011

31

Source 1

R1 R2

TYNDP 2011-2020 – Common route shareSource 1 – Balance: 600 Units

Route 1 – Technical capacity: 300 UnitsRoute 2 – Technical capacity: 300 UnitsRoute 3 – Technical capacity: 400 Units

Total technical capacity: 1000 Units: Load-factor: 60%Route 1 – 180 UnitsRoute 2 – 180 UnitsRoute 3 - 240 Units

Historical load-factor of the routes (last 3 years)Route 1 – 50% - 150 UnitsRoute 2 – 70% - 210 UnitsRoute 3 – 40% - 160 Units

Total: 520 UnitsDifferent route share according to the historical data:Route 1 = 600 * (150/520) = 173 UnitsRoute 2 = 600 * (210/520) = 242 UnitsRoute 3 = 600 * (160/520) = 184 Units

R3

Supply shares by route

32

Russian Routes

Supply shares by route. Results’ test

> The big differences between the historical load factors of the different routes lead to a significant change in the import shares by route when substituting the average load factor by a historical-based route shares.

> Due to the lack of historical data, an average load factor is used for Nordstream.

33

Different approaches: Results test

> The average historical load factor of the Ukraine to Slovakia route (62%) is significantly over the Russian average (50%), therefore the utilization of this route would be significantly lower when considering an homogeneous value.

> The same is happening for the Belarus to Poland route (including Yamal), where the average historical load factor is 67%.

34

Different approaches: Results test

> Due to the low average historical load factor of the route from Ukraine to Romania (7%) the utilization of an homogeneous load factor values would lead to too high import flows through this route .

> Something similar is found for the route from Ukraine to Hungary where the average historical load factor is 33%.

Definition of the reference casePEAK DAY

35

High daily supply share – Reference Case

36

GWh/d 2011 2015 2020

Demand 1400 1700 2000

National Production

Potential 350 300 250

Actual share 350 300 250

Net Demand 1050 1400 1750

Supply A Average Daily 400 543 700

High Daily share 500 679 875

Supply B Average Daily 300 407 500

High Daily share 400 541 665

To be covered by UGS and LNG at same load factor

150 180 210

GWh/d Max 2008/2009 Average daily share High Daily Ratio

Supply A 500 400 1.25

Supply B 400 300 1.33

37

Proposed changes/improvements

Source 1

R1 R2

Maximum Historical supply from Source1: 13,000 Units – specific date Route 1: 7,500 UnitsRoute 2: 5,500 Units

Maximum non-simultaneous supply from Source 1: 14,000 UnitsRoute 1: 8,000 UnitsRoute 2: 6,000 Units

Historical yearly supply from Source 1: 3,650,000 Units – Average 10,000 units

Peak supply from source 1:

TYNDP 2011-2020-Maximum non-simultaneous supply-Peak factor: Maximum/Average

14,000/10,000 ~ 1,4-Apply the historical peak factor to the “estimated” volumes in the future-This approach has been said to be to optimistic as the maximum flexibility may have been reached.

ALTERNATIVES-Maximum historical daily values without yearly volumes considerations:

- Maximum simultaneous supply (13,000)- Maximum non-simultaneous supply (14,000)

-Volume consideration - Peak factors:- From the maximum simultaneous supply ~ 1,3- From the maximum non simultaneous supply ~ 1,4 (*)

(*) Follow the TYNDP 2011-2020 methodology

38

New approach: a more realistic reference cases

Definition of Potential levels of SupplyDaily average>Supply shares by source:

> Average 2009-2010-2011 on the ENTSOG historical data base.>Supply shares by route:

> The import flows by route are proportional to the historical utilization of the routes – average 2009-2010-2011.

Peak Day

>A certain share of LNG is treated as pipeline gas -> Daily minimum LNG import. The remaining LNG import capacity, as well as the UGS are used as last resource sources, with common load factors.>The pipeline imports are defined by the historical daily maximums by source (or by route).

39

Different approaches: Results testDaily peak- Maximum historical daily values without yearly volumes considerations:

- Maximum simultaneous supply -> OPTION A- Maximum non-simultaneous supply -> OPTION B

- Volume consideration - Peak factors:- From the maximum simultaneous supply -> OPTION C- From the maximum non simultaneous supply -> OPTION D (TYNDP 2011-2020)

OPTION A OPTION B OPTION C OPTION DRussia 5,467 6,250 1.39 1.58 Norway 3,893 4,253 1.39 1.51 Algeria 1,466 1,546 1.51 1.60 Libya 322 322 1.18 1.18

Daily historical maximum Peak Rate

40

Different approaches: Results test

41

Different approaches: Results test

42

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

EML: Olivier.Lebois@entsog.euCarmen.Rodriguez@entsog.eu

T: + 32 2 894 5105 / 5125WWW: www.entsog.eu