GEM Gas Pipelines Report 2022 Methodology

Pipe Dreams 2022: data sources

All data and figures for Pipe Dreams 2022 are based on a January 2022 version of Global Energy Monitor's Global Gas Infrastructure Tracker (GGIT). See the GGIT download page for access to these data.

GGIT's January 2022 pipelines database contains a total of 3,255 pipeline projects, including new pipeline km and existing pipeline capacity expansions. Of projects that are proposed or in construction, 511 have non-zero length (meaning they are not capacity or directionality expansions).

Pipe Dreams 2022: methodology

The methodology for gas pipeline research can be found in the GGIT Methodology page. See an archived version from February 2022 at the time of the report's release.

Pipeline length calculations

Throughout the report, pipeline kilometers (km) are presented within countries and regions. These length calculations are done as follows:

• When the actual length of a pipeline is found in research, this is recorded and prioritized as the length used in calculations/analysis.
• When a pipeline's length is not available, we estimate it by calculating the length of the line of coordinates on the world map, using Python GIS packages.
  • Pipeline routes are added to the GEM database by either (1) tracing them directly from a map, when found in research, or (2) approximating the route as a low-resolution (typically straight or near-straight) line, with appropriate start and end points.
  • Given limited resources and route map availability, route maps vary in their accuracy. Route mapping priority is given to projects that are in development (Proposed, Construction) and over 100 km in length.
• If a pipeline crosses a national boundary, we are typically not able to find the pipeline km within each country. To estimate within-country pipeline km, we therefore use the route map in our database to estimate the pipeline's fraction within a given country, and multiply this by either the known length (prioritized when available) or the estimated length.
• For offshore routes, countries were determined using exclusive economic zones (EEZs) from Marine Regions.

Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1. Kilometers of pipeline in the proposed, construction, shelved, and cancelled stages, showing the top 20 countries ranked by km of in-development (Proposed and Construction) pipeline.

Figure 1 was produced by calculating the length of gas pipelines in each country, as detailed in Pipeline length calculations above. These estimates were done separately for every pipeline in our database and later summed; status categories left out of this were: Idle, Mothballed, Retired.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Left, km of operating gas pipelines built globally, from 2008 to present, summed according to the year they became operational. Right, km of possible future proposed, in-construction, and shelved pipelines globally.

The left-hand side of Figure 2 was produced by summing the km of operating gas pipelines by start year in our database. The right-hand side was produced by summing the km of gas pipelines with a start year of 2022 and after.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Estimated capital expenditures for in-development pipelines (third column in Table 1).

Figure 3 was produced in two steps.

• First, regional pipeline cost estimates were quantified in our database by isolating pipelines with both cost and length information available, and then calculating the region costs of pipelines per unit length (US$ per km). Note that cost and length information are both available for only about 12% of the pipelines database. See Table M1 below for these values.
• Second, these regional estimates were then used to extrapolate costs to the remainder of pipelines in these regions. Regional definitions are based on the IEA's World Energy Outlook.
• A handful of pipeline projects were excluded from the analysis because they appeared to be cost outliers. These included Delfin Offshore Pipeline, Denali Alaskan Natural Gas Pipeline, South Valley Gas Pipeline, Stratton Ridge Pipeline, Grenada to Trinidad and Tobago Gas Network, Texas Eastern Transmission (TETCO) Gas Pipeline, Leidy South Pipeline, and Columbia Gas Transmission.

Region	Cost per km (US$)	Number of data points
Australia and New Zealand	1,271,295	11
East Asia	1,693,736	60
Eurasia	3,878,476	18
Europe	2,980,665	83
Latin America and the Caribbean	2,798,030	24
Middle East and North Africa	2,558,775	15
North America	5,130,381	133
SE Asia	2,134,476	9
South Asia	1,147,718	19
Sub-Saharan Africa	3,860,864	6

Table M1. Regional cost estimates in US$ per km of gas pipeline. The number of pipeline project estimates going into each regional estimate is included in the third column. Note that GEM's Pipeline Bubble 2021, used a value of US$5.04 million per km of pipeline applied globally. However, this estimate was based largely on North American pipeline construction estimates and potentially overlooks the cheaper cost of construction in some regions, including Asian and Eurasian countries. We therefore calculate region-specific cost estimates to project total costs of pipelines that are proposed or in construction.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Regional total km of pipeline proposed (darker colors) and in construction (lighter colors) worldwide, rounded to the nearest hundred km. Percents of global in-development pipeline km are labelled. See Table 2 for more information.

Figure 4 shows km of pipeline in development across regions, as presented in Table 2.

Figure 5

Figure 5. (a) Proposed (yellow) and in-construction (red) pipelines with routes that are located within China; black box shows outline for inset. (b) Enlarged view of Guizhou Province and its Guizhou Gas Pipeline Network, with major cities for reference. (c) Number of pipeline km by start year (brown bars) and pipeline km in development within China (in-construction in red, proposed in yellow, shelved in blue).

• Figures 5a,b were created in QGIS using GGIT pipeline data. Note for legibility that only a subset of pipelines is shown.
• Figure 5c was produced by summing the km of operating gas pipelines by start year in our database within China's borders. The right-hand side was produced by summing the km of gas pipelines with a start year of 2022 and after. Hong Kong and Macao are considered part of China in this calculation.

Figure 6

Figure 6. (a) In-construction (yellow) and proposed (red) gas pipelines in India; the Jagdispu–Haldia–Bokaro–Dhamra Pipeline (JHBDPL) is shown as a dashed line. (b) Number of pipeline km by start year (brown bars) and pipeline km in development within India (inconstruction in red, proposed in yellow, shelved in blue).

• Figure 6a was created in QGIS using GGIT pipeline data. Note for legibility that only a subset of pipelines is shown.
• Figure 6b was produced by summing the km of operating gas pipelines by start year in our database within India's borders. The right-hand side was produced by summing the km of gas pipelines with a start year of 2022 and after.

Figure 7

Figure 7. (a) Major proposed and in-construction pipelines in Russia that, if built, would source gas from the Yamal Peninsula. (b) Number of pipeline km by start year (brown bars) and pipeline km in development within Russia (in-construction in red, proposed in yellow, shelved in blue).

• Figure 7a was created in QGIS using GGIT pipeline data. Note for legibility that only a subset of pipelines is shown.
• Figure 7b was produced by summing the km of operating gas pipelines by start year in our database within Russia's borders. The right-hand side was produced by summing the km of gas pipelines with a start year of 2022 and after.

Figure 8

Figure 8. (a) Australia’s existing pipeline network (brown), along with proposed (yellow) and in-construction (red) pipelines. Major gas basins mentioned in the Australian National Gas Infrastructure Plan (NGIP) are labelled, and the locations of two proposed LNG export terminals (Pluto LNG Terminal and Port Kembla FSRU) are shown. (b) Number of pipeline km by start year (brown bars) and pipeline km in development within Australia (in-construction in red, proposed in yellow, shelved in blue).

• Figure 8a was created in QGIS using GGIT pipeline data. Note for legibility that only a subset of pipelines is shown.
• Figure 8b was produced by summing the km of operating gas pipelines by start year in our database within Australia's borders. The right-hand side was produced by summing the km of gas pipelines with a start year of 2022 and after.

Figure 9

Figure 9. (a) Map of the U.S. showing a subset of major planned pipelines (proposed in yellow, in-construction in red); an approximate outline of the Appalachian Basin is included for reference. (b) Several major proposed and in-construction pipelines along the Appalachian Basin and in Maryland. (c) Number of pipeline km by start year (brown bars) and pipeline km in development within the U.S. (in-construction in red, proposed in yellow, shelved in blue).

• Figures 9a,b were created in QGIS using GGIT pipeline data. Note for legibility that only a subset of pipelines is shown.
• Figure 9c was produced by summing the km of operating gas pipelines by start year in our database within U.S. borders. The right-hand side was produced by summing the km of gas pipelines with a start year of 2022 and after.

Figure 10

Figure 10. (a) Proposed (yellow) and in-construction (red) gas pipelines in Brazil, with an approximate location of offshore gas basins along Brazil’s east coast. (b) Enlarged view of northeast Brazil, including in-development LNG terminals. (c) Enlarged view of Eastern Brazil, where offshore pipelines are proposed to source gas from offshore Basins. (d) Number of pipeline km by start year (brown bars) and pipeline km in development within Brazil. (in-construction in red, proposed in yellow, shelved in blue).

• Figures 10a,b,c were created in QGIS using GGIT pipeline data. Note for legibility that only a subset of pipelines is shown.
• Figure 10d was produced by summing the km of operating gas pipelines by start year in our database within Brazil's borders. The right-hand side was produced by summing the km of gas pipelines with a start year of 2022 and after.

Tables

Table 1

Region	Proposed	Construction	In Development (Proposed + Construction)
East Asia	54.9	44.6	99.5
Sub-Saharan Africa	54.2	21.3	75.5
North America	48.9	20.0	68.9
Eurasia	45.3	18.3	63.6
Europe	44.2	15.8	60.0
Latin America and the Caribbean	31.8	1.5	33.3
Middle East and North Africa	12.9	12.8	25.7
South Asia	4.7	20.5	25.2
SE Asia	15.2	2.4	17.6
Australia and New Zealand	15.7	0.7	16.5
Total	327.8	158.0	485.8

Table 1. Estimated capital expenditures for in-development pipelines (Proposed, Construction, and their sum), in $US billion. Cost estimates were calculated using regional averages described in Figure 3 and Table M1 above.

Table 2

Region	Proposed	Construction	Proposed + Construction
East Asia	32400	26,300	58,800
South Asia	4100	17,900	22,000
Europe	14800	5,300	20,100
Sub-Saharan Africa	14000	5500	19,600
Eurasia	11700	4,700	16,400
North America	9500	3,900	13,400
Australia and New Zealand	12400	600	12,900
Latin America and the Caribbean	11400	500	11,900
Middle East and North Africa	5000	5,000	10,000
SE Asia	7100	1,100	8,200
Total	122,500	70,900	193,400

Table 2. Regional total km of pipeline in development worldwide, rounded to the nearest hundred km (same data as shown in Figure 3).

Table 3

Parent Company	Proposed	Construction	In Development (Proposed + Construction)	Ownership	Country
Gazprom	12113	3990	16103	Private / State	Russia
PipeChina	8603	3935	12538	State	China
Sinopec	1646	8730	10376	State	China
GAIL (India) Limited	890	6918	7808	State	India
Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation	4296	1427	5723	State	Nigeria
China National Petroleum Corporation	942	3820	4762	State	China
Transnet	3946	0	3946	State	South Africa
Ministry of Petroleum of Iran	0	3780	3780	State	Iran
Guizhou Wujiang Energy Group Co., Ltd.	0	3147	3147	State	China
Moroccan National Board of Hydrocarbons and Mines	2830	0	2830	State	Morocco
Transgaz	2673	90	2763	State	Romania
Alaska Gasline Development Corporation	2760	0	2760	State	USA
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.	237	2298	2535	State	India
Turkmengaz	270	2136	2406	State	Turkmenistan
Gujarat State Petronet	181	2108	2289	State	India
TC Energy	732	1512	2244	State	Canada
Empresa Nacional de Hidrocarbonetos de Mozambique	1950	0	1950	State	Mozambique
Gaz-System	607	1309	1916	State	Poland
Jiangsu Coastal Gas Pipeline Co., Ltd.	1903	0	1903	State	China
Petrobras	1227	355	2620	State	Brazil

Table 3. Top 20 gas pipeline developers in the world, sorted by km of in-development pipeline (third column) rounded to the nearest hundred km. Full Chinese character names for state-owned enterprises in China are: PipeChina, 国家石油天然气管网集团有限公司; Sinopec, 中国石油化工股份有限公司; CNPC, 中国 石油天然气集团公司; Guizhou Wujiang Energy Group Co., Ltd., 贵州乌江能源集团有限责任公司; Jiangsu Coastal Gas Pipeline Co., Ltd., 江苏省沿海输气管道公司

Table 4

Pipeline	Status	Capacity	Length	Associated LNG export terminal	Terminal status
Construction
Columbia Gas Transmission Louisiana XPress Expansion Project	Construction	493 MMcf/d	Capacity expansion only	Sabine Pass LNG Terminal	Operating, expansion under construction
Corpus Christi Pipeline Expansion Project	Construction	1530 MMcf/d	34 km	Corpus Christi LNG Terminal	Operating, expansion under construction
Gemini Gulf Coast Pipeline	Construction	1500 MMcf/d	241 km
Golden Pass Gas Pipeline	Construction	2500 MMcf/d	111 km	Golden Pass LNG Terminal	Construction
Gulf Run Pipeline	Construction	1650 MMcf/d	216 km
TransCameron Pipeline	Construction	1900 MMcf/d	39 km	Calcasieu Pass LNG Terminal	Construction
Proposed
Commonwealth LNG Pipeline	Proposed	1440 MMcf/d	5 km	Commonwealth LNG Terminal	Proposed
CP Express Pipeline	Proposed	4000 MMcf/d	147 km	CP2 LNG Terminal	Proposed
Delfin Offshore Pipeline	Proposed	1500 MMcf/d	48 km	Delfin LNG Terminal	Proposed
Delta Express Pipeline	Proposed	2050 MMcf/d	459 km	Delta LNG Terminal	Proposed
Driftwood LNG Pipeline	Proposed	3500 MMcf/d	154 km	Driftwood LNG Terminal	Proposed
Driftwood LNG Pipeline Line 200 Expansion	Proposed	2400 MMcf/d	60 km
Driftwood LNG Pipeline Line 300 Expansion	Proposed	4600 MMcf/d	48 km
Freeport LNG Terminal Pipeline	Proposed	740 MMcf/d	17 km	Freeport LNG Terminal	Partially operating, expansion proposed
Gator Express Gas Pipeline	Proposed	1970 MMcf/d	43 km	Plaquemines LNG Terminal	Proposed
Evangeline Pass Gas Pipeline	Proposed	1000 MMcf/d	21 km
Lake Charles LNG Pipeline	Proposed	3100 MMcf/d	29 km	Lake Charles LNG Terminal	Proposed
Leidy South Pipeline	Proposed	580 MMcf/d	20 km	Cove Point LNG Terminal	Operating
Magnolia Gas Pipeline	Proposed	1362 MMcf/d	2 km	Magnolia LNG Terminal	Proposed
Port Arthur Gas Pipeline	Proposed	2000 MMcf/d	266 km	Port Arthur LNG Terminal	Proposed
Rio Bravo Gas Pipeline	Proposed	4500 MMcf/d	220 km	Rio Grande LNG Terminal	Proposed
West Delta LNG Pipeline	Proposed	900 MMcf/d	32 km	West Delta LNG Terminal	Proposed
Total			2212

Table 4. Pipelines in development along the U.S. Gulf Coast, with associated LNG export infrastructure included where relevant. Pipeline capacity units are in million cubic feet per day (MMcf/d); length is rounded to the nearest whole km.