6. Discusión 1 Edad
6.21. Alta del servicio de urgencias
One of the key strengths of the TTF is its existing popularity. As highlighted in section 2.1.3, the TTF has already grown into a successful trading hub. In a 2008 survey the Netherlands was ranked second after the UK in term of overall market liquidity and efficiency, based on factors such as volume of trading, number of participants, market transparency and price reliability.123 Table 8 below illustrates that in 2009 the TTF had the highest trading volume of any continental European trading hub. Since traders naturally prefer more liquid trading hubs, a successful hub is likely to grow as more market players want to trade thA trading hub is most useful where it can arbitrage price differences between several different sources of gas. It is interesting to trade at a point where a high-price source of gas meets a low-price source of gas for example. The physical position of the TTF means that it can act as a trading point to arbitrage Norwegian gas landing at Emden, LNG flowing in at the Gate terminal, gas flowing to or from the UK via BBL or IUK, domestically produced Dutch gas and Russian gas flowing via Germany. The potential for arbitraging price differences between these gas sources is a key advantage for the TTF.
Table 8: European Trading Hub Liquidity in 2009
Country Hub Traded Volume bcm [A] % Change vs. ‘08 % [B] Physical Volume bcm [C] Churn Factor [D] UK NBP 1,089.3 9.7 93.5 11.7 Netherlands TTF 82.2 28.4 27.0 3.0 Belgium Z-Hub 67.0 13.6 13.0 5.2 Germany NCG 51.9 98.9 22.0 2.4 Italy PSV 24.6 50.0 11.5 2.1 Austria CEGH 22.8 52.0 7.6 3.0 France Peg Nord 19.6 117.8 7.2 2.7 Germany Gaspool 14.2 NA NA NA
The diversity of gas to which the TTF has access is also an advantage relative to one of the TTF’s potential rivals – the German gas trading hubs of Gaspool and NetConnect Germany (NCG). Market players currently perceive that Germany has great potential as a European trading hub, both because of the volumes consumed and transited across the country. The reduction in the number of German trading zones to two has no doubt boosted liquidity at the German hubs. As Table 8 shows the NCG hub increased its 2009 trading volumes by almost 100% with respect to the previous year. We calculate that as of April 2010 NCG has further closed the volume gap with TTF. Based on Table 8, in 2009 NCG traded 37% less volume than TTF. In the period January to April 2010, inclusive, NCG traded only 12% less volume than TTF.124 As of April 2010 there were 154 parties trading H-gas at the NCG, compared to just under 70 trading on TTF.
123 The Moffatt Associates Partnership, “Review and analysis of EU Wholesale energy markets, Evaluation of Factors Impacting on Current and Future Market Liquidity and Efficiency”, 2 July 2008, p. 43. 124 We calculate that in the period January to April 2010, inclusive, 35.3 bcm was traded on TTF compared to 30.7 bcm on the NCG. Both numbers include both H-gas and L-gas trades. At the time of writing, GTS only had TTF volumes available up to the 24th April, 2010. We have extrapolated the remainder of April assuming the average April volumes were traded between 25th to 31st April.
However, we note that much of the German liquidity may be due to the current oversupply of gas, and selling of excess gas volumes bought under long-term contracts. Once demand recovers to pre-crisis levels – which many commentators expect to happen in 3-4 years time – the rate of increase in the liquidity of the German hubs may reduce. Moreover, Germany does not have access to as diverse a range of gas sources as the TTF. Germany has little domestic gas production, and almost all its imports come from Norway, the Netherlands and Russia. The Nord Stream project, which from 2011 will import gas from Russia into Germany, could significantly increase Russia’s share of the German gas market, reducing the diversity of supply further. Germany has no LNG import terminal to date, though as we note above a terminal is being considered.
Moreover, market participants did not necessarily think that the success of a German gas market and a Dutch gas market were mutually exclusive. One possibility is that, if Germany becomes a major hub in Europe, this might improve the attractiveness of the Netherlands as a transit route for gas bought in Germany. Other possibilities include the creation of a cross-border hub, perhaps involving a merger of TTF with Gaspool – Gasunie has ownership interests in both. The gas committee chairman of the European Federation of Energy Traders said recently that “[t]he emphasis in Germany is on creating two hubs, but maybe what Europe needs is cross-border hubs”.125
With respect to the Zeebrugge trading hub, TTF enjoys the advantage of much firmer physical supply from Dutch gas production and storage. Trade at Zeebrugge is highly dependent on the availability of the IUK. If IUK fails, trading volumes at Zeebrugge can fall. For example, Figure 27 illustrates the fall in trading volumes during a planned shutdown of IUK during September 2008. The fall in trading volumes could be more severe if the shutdown was unexpected. In contrast, the gas supply to the Netherlands – including domestic production and gas storage – is sufficiently diverse there is no single supply source to which deliveries to the TTF are vulnerable.
Figure 27: Gas Trading at Zeebrugge During the September 2008 Shutdown of IUK
125 World Gas Intelligence, “Horizon: Eyes on Germany, Italy as Trading Soars at European Hubs”, 9 June, 2010. 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 10/08/2008 10/08/2008 10/08/2008 10/08/2008 10/08/2008 10/08/2008 10/08/2008
Traded volumes, mln Nm3/day IUK flows, mln Num3/day
Traded volumes IUK Flows
Notes and sources:
Data from Huberator, Interconnector (UK) Ltd.
While TTF is a successful hub, Table 8 illustrates that the UK’s NBP currently dwarfs all the continental trading hubs. One concern is that NBP could dominate all European gas trading, in the way that the Henry Hub in the US acts as the focal point for US gas trading. However, the key advantage that TTF has is that it is located on continen- tal Europe, where it is relatively cheap to expand onshore gas transport capacity to neighbouring markets. In contrast, from a trading perspective, the NBP always has the risk that congestion on the BBL and IUK will cause NBP prices to ‘disconnect’ from the continent. Since the pipelines that link NBP to the continent are merchant lines that rely on congestion to earn a return, there is no commercial incentive to eliminate all congestion. It seems likely that UK and continental gas prices will continue to have periods of divergence, and for this reason there will be space for both one or two continental trading hubs as well as the NBP.
Market participants see the liquidity of the TTF as one of the most positive features of the Dutch gas landscape. However, market participants did raise concerns with respect to market power and GasTerra’s dominance of the Dutch wholesale market. For some market participants the dominance of GasTerra in the domestic market created the impression of a ‘managed market’ where prices were not as trustworthy as they might be in a market with a more diversified gas wholesalers. This reduced the attractiveness of the Netherlands as a transit route. One participant thought that more could be done to improve liquidity on the TTF, by for example forcing GasTerra to deliver more gas there at terms which allowed easy re-sale of the gas.
We also understand that the new balancing market will be separate from the TTF, although there will some integration between the two markets and information exchange to try and ensure that prices on the balancing market and the TTF are aligned. Nevertheless, we note that the TSO’s use of the On the Day Commodity market (OCM) for balancing actions in the UK has been a major contributor to the success of the NBP trading hub. It would be desirable to maximise integration between the TTF intra-day market and the new balancing market, with the ultimate aim of a single intra-day market that will maximise liquidity.
Market participants noted that while the Netherlands is and will likely continue to be an attractive gas hub, it is limited by its ‘geographical footprint’, located as it is in the north-west corner of Europe. Market participants highlighted that geographic constraints place natural limits on the degree to which they would use the Dutch gas hub for trading.