{"id":"analysis-gas-lng-delivered-energy-logistics-2026","canonicalSlug":"analysis-gas-lng-delivered-energy-logistics-2026","url":"https://wellficent.com/en/news/analysis-gas-lng-delivered-energy-logistics-2026","language":"en","title":"LNG sales volumes: why contract tonnes differ from delivered energy","summary":"A multi-year 2 Mt agreement reveals total mass, not annual rate, energy or price; logistics and quality complete the calculation.","body":["ADNOC said on 5 October 2026 that its trading arm will supply Thailand’s Gulf Group with approximately 2 million tonnes of LNG over a multi-year term beginning in 2027. The announcement does not specify the number of years, delivery schedule, price or calorific value. It therefore supports a total mass commitment, not an annual volume or a monetary value.","A separate September LNG Canada notice describes a west-coast plant expansion from 14 to 28 Mt/year and a roughly ten-day shipping route to Asia. The two announcements are not evidence that Canadian cargoes fulfil the Thailand contract. They illustrate different links in the LNG chain: an export facility’s annual nameplate, a sales agreement’s aggregate mass and a voyage time under one geographic route."],"keyPoints":["ADNOC’s approximately 2 Mt is an aggregate multi-year volume, with no disclosed annual schedule.","At a hypothetical 50 GJ/t, 2 Mt contain 100 million GJ before stated losses.","Loaded tonnes, delivered tonnes and accepted energy require separate records."],"sections":[{"heading":"Evidence and measurement","paragraphs":["Mass must be translated into usable heat with a contractual heating value. For a transparent illustration only, assume 50 gigajoules per tonne of LNG. Then 2 million tonnes contain 100 million GJ before voyage, regasification and end-use losses. Actual energy depends on composition and the contract’s higher- or lower-heating-value convention; 50 GJ/t is an assumption, not a measured cargo quality.","If one additionally assumes a 2% loss between loading and delivered usable energy, the illustrative 100 million GJ becomes 98 million GJ. At 5% it becomes 95 million GJ. These rates deliberately combine logistics and conversion losses for a sensitivity exercise; actual boil-off can be used as ship fuel and contract delivery points determine which party bears each difference."]},{"heading":"Engineering chain","paragraphs":["A multi-year term cannot be reduced to 1 Mt/year merely because total supply is 2 Mt. If the hypothetical term were two years with even delivery it would average 1 Mt/year; four years would average 0.5 Mt/year. Neither duration is stated by ADNOC. Take-or-pay, destination flexibility, seasonal nominations and cargo size could make the actual annual profile uneven.","The monetary comparison also requires common units. A quoted price per million British thermal units applies to energy, while transport and storage may be charged per tonne or cargo. Converting tonnes with an assumed heating value before comparing prices avoids a unit error; one must also specify whether the energy figure refers to loaded or delivered gas."]},{"heading":"Economic mechanism","paragraphs":["For illustration, at a hypothetical US$1/GJ change in delivered margin, 98 million GJ of delivered energy would change total pre-tax contribution by US$98 million over the agreement, if that energy were actually delivered. This is not the contract price or expected profit. Financing, taxes, shipping charters, penalties and timing are absent.","The route matters because ship time ties up vessel capacity and working capital. LNG Canada’s roughly ten-day Asia sailing estimate applies to its own route; it cannot be assigned to an ADNOC-to-Thailand shipment. Port queuing, weather, canal or strait conditions, berth availability and regasification slots alter delivered cost and timing."]},{"heading":"Illustrative sensitivity","paragraphs":["Terminal throughput is another distinct unit. A 28 Mt/year nameplate, if someday achieved, would be an annual maximum under design conditions; ADNOC’s 2 Mt is an aggregate contracted volume over unspecified years. Dividing one by the other would be a hypothetical share of nameplate, not evidence of plant allocation or common supply origin.","A buyer evaluating a deal should seek the delivery point, energy quality band, cargo-size range, annual delivery programme, price index and review clauses. An exporter should also map vessel availability, loading slots and credit exposure. Those contract details turn a mass headline into a cash-flow schedule, but they are absent from the public announcement."]},{"heading":"Uncertainty and decision gates","paragraphs":["At the 6 October evidence cutoff, supply begins in 2027 according to ADNOC, with no public proof of delivered cargoes under this agreement. LNG Canada’s Phase 2 remains an investment project. Neither source reports the particular cargo heating value or a realised delivered margin, so every conversion and earnings figure above remains conditional.","For 2026–27 decisions, keep three ledgers separately: tonnes contracted, tonnes loaded or delivered, and energy accepted at the destination. Reconcile them with the contract’s measurement convention and date. Only then compare alternative routes or suppliers on a common delivered-energy cost basis."]}],"text":"LNG sales volumes: why contract tonnes differ from delivered energy\n\nA multi-year 2 Mt agreement reveals total mass, not annual rate, energy or price; logistics and quality complete the calculation.\n\nADNOC’s approximately 2 Mt is an aggregate multi-year volume, with no disclosed annual schedule.\n\nAt a hypothetical 50 GJ/t, 2 Mt contain 100 million GJ before stated losses.\n\nLoaded tonnes, delivered tonnes and accepted energy require separate records.\n\nADNOC said on 5 October 2026 that its trading arm will supply Thailand’s Gulf Group with approximately 2 million tonnes of LNG over a multi-year term beginning in 2027. The announcement does not specify the number of years, delivery schedule, price or calorific value. It therefore supports a total mass commitment, not an annual volume or a monetary value.\n\nA separate September LNG Canada notice describes a west-coast plant expansion from 14 to 28 Mt/year and a roughly ten-day shipping route to Asia. The two announcements are not evidence that Canadian cargoes fulfil the Thailand contract. They illustrate different links in the LNG chain: an export facility’s annual nameplate, a sales agreement’s aggregate mass and a voyage time under one geographic route.\n\nEvidence and measurement\n\nMass must be translated into usable heat with a contractual heating value. For a transparent illustration only, assume 50 gigajoules per tonne of LNG. Then 2 million tonnes contain 100 million GJ before voyage, regasification and end-use losses. Actual energy depends on composition and the contract’s higher- or lower-heating-value convention; 50 GJ/t is an assumption, not a measured cargo quality.\n\nIf one additionally assumes a 2% loss between loading and delivered usable energy, the illustrative 100 million GJ becomes 98 million GJ. At 5% it becomes 95 million GJ. These rates deliberately combine logistics and conversion losses for a sensitivity exercise; actual boil-off can be used as ship fuel and contract delivery points determine which party bears each difference.\n\nEngineering chain\n\nA multi-year term cannot be reduced to 1 Mt/year merely because total supply is 2 Mt. If the hypothetical term were two years with even delivery it would average 1 Mt/year; four years would average 0.5 Mt/year. Neither duration is stated by ADNOC. Take-or-pay, destination flexibility, seasonal nominations and cargo size could make the actual annual profile uneven.\n\nThe monetary comparison also requires common units. A quoted price per million British thermal units applies to energy, while transport and storage may be charged per tonne or cargo. Converting tonnes with an assumed heating value before comparing prices avoids a unit error; one must also specify whether the energy figure refers to loaded or delivered gas.\n\nEconomic mechanism\n\nFor illustration, at a hypothetical US$1/GJ change in delivered margin, 98 million GJ of delivered energy would change total pre-tax contribution by US$98 million over the agreement, if that energy were actually delivered. This is not the contract price or expected profit. Financing, taxes, shipping charters, penalties and timing are absent.\n\nThe route matters because ship time ties up vessel capacity and working capital. LNG Canada’s roughly ten-day Asia sailing estimate applies to its own route; it cannot be assigned to an ADNOC-to-Thailand shipment. Port queuing, weather, canal or strait conditions, berth availability and regasification slots alter delivered cost and timing.\n\nIllustrative sensitivity\n\nTerminal throughput is another distinct unit. A 28 Mt/year nameplate, if someday achieved, would be an annual maximum under design conditions; ADNOC’s 2 Mt is an aggregate contracted volume over unspecified years. Dividing one by the other would be a hypothetical share of nameplate, not evidence of plant allocation or common supply origin.\n\nA buyer evaluating a deal should seek the delivery point, energy quality band, cargo-size range, annual delivery programme, price index and review clauses. An exporter should also map vessel availability, loading slots and credit exposure. Those contract details turn a mass headline into a cash-flow schedule, but they are absent from the public announcement.\n\nUncertainty and decision gates\n\nAt the 6 October evidence cutoff, supply begins in 2027 according to ADNOC, with no public proof of delivered cargoes under this agreement. LNG Canada’s Phase 2 remains an investment project. Neither source reports the particular cargo heating value or a realised delivered margin, so every conversion and earnings figure above remains conditional.\n\nFor 2026–27 decisions, keep three ledgers separately: tonnes contracted, tonnes loaded or delivered, and energy accepted at the destination. Reconcile them with the contract’s measurement convention and date. Only then compare alternative routes or suppliers on a common delivered-energy cost basis.\n\nTechnical and economic analysis\n\nAnalysis as of: 2026-10-06\n\nEvidence cutoff: 2026-10-06\n\nOutlook horizon: 2026–2027\n\nIllustrative sensitivity\n\nIllustrative energy from a 2 Mt aggregate LNG volume\n\nHypothetical 50 GJ/t at loading, then stated aggregate loss; not cargo measurement.\n\nThese calculations illustrate stated assumptions; they are not observations or a calibrated forecast.\n\n0% loss: 100 million GJ over the entire contract term\n\n2% loss: 98 million GJ over the entire contract term\n\n5% loss: 95 million GJ over the entire contract term","category":"energy","region":"world","topics":["technical-analysis","energy-economics","natural-gas","lng"],"eventDate":"2026-10-06","eventDateBasis":"analysis-as-of-date","publishedAt":"2026-10-06T21:11:36Z","modifiedAt":"2026-10-06T21:11:36Z","publicationBasis":"first-publication","preparedAt":null,"sourcePublishedAt":"2026-10-05","translatedAt":null,"sources":[{"name":"ADNOC","url":"https://www.adnoc.ae/en/news-and-media/press-releases/2026/adnoc-signs-agreement-with-gulf-group-to-supply-up-to-2-million-tonnes-of-lng-to-thailand","publishedAt":"2026-10-05","checkedAt":"2026-10-06"},{"name":"LNG Canada Development Inc.","url":"https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/lng-canada-announces-phase-2-final-investment-decision-828313121.html","publishedAt":"2026-09-29","checkedAt":"2026-10-06"}],"translations":{"en":"https://wellficent.com/en/news/analysis-gas-lng-delivered-energy-logistics-2026","tr":"https://wellficent.com/tr/news/analysis-gas-lng-delivered-energy-logistics-2026","ar":"https://wellficent.com/ar/news/analysis-gas-lng-delivered-energy-logistics-2026","fr":"https://wellficent.com/fr/news/analysis-gas-lng-delivered-energy-logistics-2026","es":"https://wellficent.com/es/news/analysis-gas-lng-delivered-energy-logistics-2026","ru":"https://wellficent.com/ru/news/analysis-gas-lng-delivered-energy-logistics-2026","pt":"https://wellficent.com/pt/news/analysis-gas-lng-delivered-energy-logistics-2026"},"corrections":[],"locations":[],"type":"analysis","analysis":{"kind":"technical-economic","asOf":"2026-10-06","evidenceCutoff":"2026-10-06","horizon":"2026–2027","chart":{"kind":"illustrative","title":{"en":"Illustrative energy from a 2 Mt aggregate LNG volume","tr":"Toplam 2 Mt LNG için örnek enerji","ar":"طاقة افتراضية من إجمالي مليوني طن LNG","fr":"Énergie illustrative de 2 Mt de LNG au total","es":"Energía ilustrativa de 2 Mt totales de LNG","ru":"Иллюстративная энергия из совокупного объёма СПГ 2 млн тонн","pt":"Energia ilustrativa de um volume agregado de 2 Mt de LNG"},"unit":"million GJ over entire term","unitLabel":{"en":"million GJ over the entire contract term","tr":"sözleşmenin tüm süresinde milyon GJ","ar":"مليون غيغاجول خلال كامل مدة العقد","fr":"millions de GJ sur toute la durée du contrat","es":"millones de GJ durante todo el contrato","ru":"млн ГДж за весь срок контракта","pt":"milhões de GJ durante todo o prazo contratual"},"note":{"en":"Hypothetical 50 GJ/t at loading, then stated aggregate loss; not cargo measurement.","tr":"Varsayımsal yüklemede 50 GJ/t, ardından toplam kayıp; kargo ölçümü değil.","ar":"افتراض 50 غيغاجول/طن عند التحميل ثم خسارة إجمالية؛ ليست قياس شحنة.","fr":"Hypothèse de 50 GJ/t au chargement, puis perte globale ; pas une mesure de cargaison.","es":"Hipótesis 50 GJ/t al cargar, luego pérdida total; no es medición de cargas.","ru":"Гипотеза: 50 ГДж/т при погрузке, затем указанная совокупная потеря; это не измерение груза.","pt":"Hipótese: 50 GJ/t no carregamento, seguida da perda agregada indicada; não é uma medição da carga."},"rows":[{"label":{"en":"0% loss","tr":"%0 kayıp","ar":"خسارة 0%","fr":"Perte 0 %","es":"Pérdida 0 %","ru":"Потери 0%","pt":"Perdas de 0%"},"value":100},{"label":{"en":"2% loss","tr":"%2 kayıp","ar":"خسارة 2%","fr":"Perte 2 %","es":"Pérdida 2 %","ru":"Потери 2%","pt":"Perdas de 2%"},"value":98},{"label":{"en":"5% loss","tr":"%5 kayıp","ar":"خسارة 5%","fr":"Perte 5 %","es":"Pérdida 5 %","ru":"Потери 5%","pt":"Perdas de 5%"},"value":95}]}}}