Corpus vs. Houston: Reignited Battle for U.S. Crude Exports

It wasn’t that long ago that U.S. midstream companies were vying to attract customer commitments to new U.S. Gulf Coast crude oil export terminals. For much of 2018 and the first half of 2019, Brent to West Texas Intermediate (WTI) spreads averaged between $7 and $10/bbl primarily because of U.S. export capacity, located mainly in Houston and Port Arthur, reaching capacity. With spreads wide and an outlook for robust U.S. oil production growth, over 18 MMb/d of new crude oil export project proposals flooded the market. However, the upheaval caused by COVID has whittled down this list to just 7 MMb/d of deep-water projects with pending applications with the U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD).  

Today, the outlook for U.S. production growth is much more muted compared to outlooks in 2019. BTU Analytics expects only 2.1 MMb/d of incremental U.S. production by 2026 compared to average 2019 levels. Here we explore the competitive positioning for both new and existing export terminals and the potential for winners and losers in the race to develop new export capacity. 

How EPIC and Cactus II Changed Gulf Coast Crude Export Dynamics 

Prior to 2H 2019, Houston and Port Arthur were the primary points of crude oil export from the U.S. Both ports benefited from access to the existing pipeline and dock infrastructure due to historically importing large amounts of crude to support the Houston and Midcontinent refining markets prior to the U.S. shale boom. Together, these ports accounted for almost 2 MMb/d or 73% of Gulf Coast oil exports in 1H 2019. However, the completion of EPIC and Cactus II changed Gulf Coast crude export dynamics. The two new pipelines connected the Permian Basin to Corpus Christi and new export terminals.  

As a result, Houston and Port Arthur lost both volumes and market share. Exports from Houston and Port Arthur averaged 1.8 MMb/d or 60% of U.S. Gulf Coast (USGC) exports in 2H 2019. Conversely, Corpus Christi doubled its share of the USGC export market from 17% to 34% between 1H 2019 and 2H 2019. Furthermore, by November 2020, Corpus Christi exported 1.5 MMb/d of crude oil compared to 800 Mb/d out of Houston and Port Arthur. The chart below highlights U.S. crude oil exports by port. 

Proposed Deep-Water Projects Pending Applications 

Except for LOOP in Louisiana, there are currently no other deep-water ports on the Gulf Coast. Due to their ability to load larger volumes quickly to Very Large Crude Carriers (VLCCs), deep-water ports can potentially offer lower costs for crude going to export. In a bid to regain market share, three out of four proposed deep-water projects with pending applications with MARAD are proposed for the Houston and Port Arthur markets near existing pipeline and storage assets for several companies. The fourth is proposed for additional capacity at Corpus Christi and would also be supported by existing pipeline assets. 

While Corpus Christi exports took market share from Houston in 2H 2019, owners and interested joint parties in the export projects for Houston are taking steps to increase project competitiveness via more than just pipeline and storage interconnects. For example, after two years of maintaining separate contracts, Magellan and Enterprise recently announced a plan to create a single futures contract for physical delivery in the Houston area. Enterprise is an owner of the proposed SPOT terminal. Meanwhile, Magellan has expressed interest in partnering with Sentinel to provide a direct connection to the GulfLink export terminal. 

Conclusion 

Increased trading liquidity alone is not likely to reverse trends in market share. Production volumes first need to rebound. In the interim, terminal operators may have to develop lower-cost deep-water connections to reverse trends in market share. For more on BTU Analytics’ outlook on crude oil exports, oil pipeline flows, and price forecasts for key U.S. benchmarks and Brent, request a sample of our Oil Market Outlook Report. 

This article was originally published on the BTU Analytics website.  

This blog post is for informational purposes only. The information contained in this blog post is not legal, tax, or investment advice. FactSet does not endorse or recommend any investments and assumes no liability for any consequence relating directly or indirectly to any action or inaction taken based on the information contained in this article.