Don’t Blame the ‘Energy Transition’ for the Damage Being Caused by the ‘Energy Transition’…

Guest “Don’t blame green schist for the energy crisis it is causing” by David Middleton

Alessandro Blasi is a geophysicist and Special Advisor to the IEA Executive Director, International Energy Agency. His LinkedIn posts are always informative and well-founded… Well… Almost always…

This bit is priceless…

The 1st is to make diagnosis properly and not take the shortcut of just pointing the finger towards the clean transition as the main cause of current energy crisis.

Mr. Blasi urges people not to blame the “transition” to clean energy sources for the current “energy crisis.” Larry the Cable Guy would say, “I don’t care who you are, that’s funny right there!”

The reason why we are in this energy crisis is a lack of investment in fossil fuel resources due to the fake “transition” to clean energy sources. The totally fake transition from fossil fuels to Unicorn dust has caused the greatest misallocation of capital since alchemy was considered a science.

Mr. Blassi’s LinkedIn post included a link to this Economist article:

Natural-gas shortages threaten governments’ green goals

Why do we suddenly have looming natural gas shortages?

The world was warned about this last year…

COAL | NATURAL GAS | OIL 10 Dec 2020

Looming supply gap requires trillions of dollars in investment by ailing oil and gas industry, IEF warns

Author Herman Wang
Editor Alisdair Bowles
Commodity Coal , Natural Gas, Oil

London — The oil and gas industry will have to overcome its pandemic-induced retrenchment and boost investment by at least 25% annually over the next three years to prevent a severe supply crunch that could send prices skyrocketing and tip the global economy back into crisis, according to an intergovernmental agency.

Even with the possibility of peak demand nearing, the world will lack enough production capacity to meet its projected needs if oil companies do not urgently replace depleted reserves and develop new fields, the International Energy Forum said in a Dec. 10 report.

“Without sufficient investment, a reduced supply of oil and gas could lead to greater market volatility and higher prices, slowing the global economic recovery and jeopardizing energy security and international goals,” said the IEF, which collaborated with Boston Consulting Group on the study.

Warnings of a looming supply gap are not new, and indeed, both producing and consuming countries are largely united on the issue. Dating back to the oil price slump that began in 2014, the International Energy Agency and OPEC have both sounded the alarm that upstream capex in the industry was insufficient to meet future demand.

There has never been an energy transition. We just add more sources of energy to the mix, to feed an ever-growing demand for energy.

[…]

S&P Global Platts

Why aren’t oil & gas companies ratcheting up CapEx as quickly as the world allegedly needs us to?

  1. Wall Street is demanding that we exercise capital discipline and focus on shareholder return instead of growth… And most of us are fine with that because we remember 2014.
  2. The Climatariat/energy transition/fossil fuel divestment “axis of doofuses” is working 24/7/365 to limit our access to capital.

Unless we pledge allegiance to the ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) Agenda…

Feb, 2020

S&P sees tight access to capital for energy companies not addressing ESG

Author Jodi Shafto
Theme Energy

Access to capital may become increasingly more difficult for oil and gas companies failing to meet environmental goals, S&P Global Ratings said.

Even as the world moves toward cleaner energy options, the demand for fossil fuels will continue to grow. Still, investors are growing reluctant to fund companies that fail to address the environmental impacts of fossil fuel exploration and production, Ratings said during a Feb. 5 webinar.

S&P Global Ratings manager Luke Shane said this issue has already moved to the forefront and will continue to grow in importance. Some smaller banks, mostly in Europe, are dropping out of some of the revolver and credit syndications — loans offered by a group of lenders who work together to provide credit to a large borrower — looking to reduce exposure to companies that are heavy polluters, he said.

Further, hundreds of international investors have joined an initiative backed by the United Nations that aims to integrate environmental, social and governance standards into investment practice.

Principles for Responsible Investment asks signatories to publicly commit to consider ESG issues in investment analysis and decision-making processes, be active owners, and incorporate ESG issues into their ownership policies and practices. Signatories also agree to seek appropriate disclosure on ESG issues by the entities in which they invest, promote acceptance and implementation of the principles within the investment industry, work together to enhance effectiveness in implementing the principles and report on their activities and progress toward implementing the principles, according to the group’s website.

Shane said the initiative requires that signatories have ESG criteria integrated for 50% of the assets under their management. “This is clearly going to have an impact on capital access going forward,” he said. Noncompliance or failure to sign the agreement could result in the delisting of asset managers — “clearly something they don’t want,” Shane said.

As access to capital tightens, companies may need to explore mergers and acquisitions, shrinking the number of exploration and production companies working to meet the demand for oil and natural gas that is still expected to grow despite the push toward cleaner energy.

Most forecasts for oil demand project continued growth underpinned by energy demand, S&P Global Ratings senior director Simon Redmond said during the webinar. The world has a choice between using less energy or finding a better way of dealing with the pollution that arises from using fossil fuels, he said.

Fossil fuels, however, are used to meet 75% of global energy demand, and it will take a long time for non-fossil fuels to make up any significant proportion of that energy demand, Redmond said. If only for that reason, the demand for fossil fuels will grow for at least 10 years for oil and longer for natural gas.

[…]

S&P Global Market Intelligence

We can find and produce the oil & gas that the global economy depends upon… We can even do this while building out carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS) operations… However, the more effort we have to expend on appeasing activists like Blackrock’s Larry Fink, the less effort we can devote to finding at producing the oil & natural gas quickly enough to avoid near-term supply shortages.

Until Wall Street, governments and idealistic fools comprehend the fact that there has never been an energy transition… Nor will there ever be an energy transition, the grotesque misallocation of capital will continue to worsen this self-inflicted “energy crisis.”

This is from the Energy Information Administration’s 2020 International Energy Outlook, published in October 2020:

Figure 1. Primary energy consumption, line chart, as it appears in IEO2020, plus 2014 & 2048 annotations added by this author.

It’s important to note that the EIA lumps hydroelectric in with renewables. If I was putting the chart together, I would have segregated them. I would have also not included biofuels with petroleum liquids… But you couldn’t see their contribution to the chart even if you segregated them.

While the original title highlights the projected increase in renewable energy, note that no other energy sources significantly decline over the full projection period, not even coal, which was then projected to top its 2014 peak by 2048.

If I plot the exact same data as a stacked area chart (like I would plot production data from an oil field), I get a totally different headline.

Figure 2. Primary energy consumption, stacked area chart. EIA chart modified by this author.

We’ve never transitioned from one form of energy to another; we just pile new sources on top of the old sources and use them more efficiently, with less impact on the environment. We burn almost as much biomass now as we did when we started burning coal; we just no longer rely on whale oil as a major component of that biomass.

Figure 3. Bjorn Lomborg, LinkedIn

About the Author

For those possibly unfamiliar with me, I have been a geologist/geophysicist in the US oil & gas industry since May 1981… Working for companies most of you have never heard of.

4.9 35 votes
Article Rating
132 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
sid
September 27, 2021 6:13 am

Thanks a lot, that’s an angle I hadn’t thought of. Look forward to offering it to my ‘green’ friends.
Dont know how you post so much and hold a job down

Carbon Bigfoot
Reply to  sid
September 27, 2021 7:33 am

It’s all Trump’s fault David.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Carbon Bigfoot
September 27, 2021 9:42 am

Blank Looks Matter Quid Pro Joe heading for the basement, down to 40% by Rasmussen:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/09/biden-freefall-joe-bidens-approval-sinks-new-low-40-latest-national-polling/

Robert Hanson
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
September 27, 2021 10:53 am

Steady progression over the past month or so: 46, 44, 42 now 40…

Robert Hanson
Reply to  Robert Hanson
September 27, 2021 11:00 am

oh, and for the $3.5 trillion Dem reconciliation bill, it’s 53% opposed, and only 36% in favor. Apparently Nancy Pelosi has seen these polls as well, since a month ago she was saying no vote on the bipartisan bill until the 3.5 bill is also ready for a vote. Today she said the bipartisan bill will be voted on Thursday, while the 3.5 bill has gone nowhere in the Senate. More and more “moderate” Dems seem to be getting worried about that election just over a year away.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Robert Hanson
September 27, 2021 11:26 am

Nutter Nanc was making noises today about tightening the screws this week to get all these garbage bills passed.

Bryan A
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
September 27, 2021 2:23 pm

Curious about figure 2…
What’s Ruclear? Is that Scooby Speak?

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Robert Hanson
September 27, 2021 4:57 pm

I am more amazed that 40% of Americans approve. Maybe its 40% of the percentage of brain function

Dave Fair
Reply to  Gary Pearse
September 27, 2021 8:20 pm

Rasmussen polls only likely voters. His questions are generally neutral. I note that Rasmussen was the only poll-taker that predicted the 2016 Presidential election correctly. Rasmussen polls are consistently more accurate than their competitions’.

The Americans in general like getting the gravy described by the Leftist poll-takers by about 65%.

TonyG
Reply to  Dave Fair
September 28, 2021 7:50 am

Rasmussen polls are consistently more accurate than their competitions

Yet Rasmussen is constantly dismissed as “right-wing” therefore inaccurate…

Shawn Marshall
Reply to  Gary Pearse
September 28, 2021 5:08 am

It’s all about abortion … the gold standard of the DemoncRat Party without which they would be impotent. Our Nation is being destroyed on the altar of child sacrifice.

another ian
Reply to  Robert Hanson
September 27, 2021 6:56 pm

Working down to a hockey stick?

Carbon Bigfoot
Reply to  Carbon Bigfoot
September 27, 2021 11:17 am

A Legislator in Pennsylvania sent me this ridiculous letter today:
September 27, 2021
 
The Pennsylvania General Assembly
Pennsylvania House of Representatives and
Pennsylvania Senate
462 Main Capitol Building
Harrisburg, PA 17120
 
   RE: The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) – CO2 Budget Trading Program
 
Dear Members of the Pennsylvania General Assembly:
 
We, the undersigned, are strongly urging you to support Pennsylvania participating in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). RGGI has a more than 10-year proven track record of reducing CO2 emissions and significantly improving the lives of the people in its member states. RGGI will benefit all Pennsylvanians by improving the air quality and therefore our health, reducing the effects of climate change that we currently already struggle to grapple with, and bringing 21st century jobs to our Commonwealth.
 
We are closely following RGGI as it makes its way through the established regulatory rulemaking process, and we are very concerned about the numerous, misguided, detrimental attempts to derail RGGI at every step in this process. At the same time, we are pleased with the diligently crafted bills that seek to expand the benefits that RGGI could provide to all Pennsylvanians.
 
In order to support RGGI, we ask that you vote AGAINST both the RGGI disapproval resolutions as well as House Bill 637 (HB 637) bills which just clearly serve as harmful roadblocks to the established regulatory procedure that RGGI has been following. Polls show that a majority of Pennsylvanians support our participation in RGGI, and this position was borne out in the RGGI public comment period, where an overwhelming number of comments were in favor of Pennsylvania participating in RGGI.
 
Additionally, we ask that you vote in SUPPORT of both the RGGI proposal and Senate Bill 15 (SB 15) / House Bill 1565 (HB 1565), the RGGI Investments Act. This legislation (RGGI Investments Act) would expand the ways in which the RGGI proceeds can be spent to include energy worker transition as well as helping environmental justice communities. These additional bills would help Pennsylvanians in severely needed ways to build better lives for us all. If nothing is done, many of the fossil fuel-fired power plants will close anyway, but would do so without any support for their workers and their communities. However, the RGGI Investments Act provides a means for helping these workers, so they won’t be left out in the cold.
 
Climate change is real and is happening now. We have seen the devastating impacts from extreme weather that Pennsylvania has been experiencing, including Hurricane Sandy, Isaias, and most recently, Ida, where unprecedented flooding has ruined the homes of many of our neighbors and has done untold damage to our public infrastructure. Climate change costs us all real money. We must take big, bold steps towards mitigating the dire impacts of climate change that will continue to devastate our communities. We must choose to build a sustainable, habitable world for our current and future generations.
 
By OPPOSING both the RGGI disapproval resolutions and the HB 637 bill, and SUPPORTING both the RGGI proposal and the RGGI Investments Act (SB 15 / HB 1565), you are leading us towards that hopeful future. We are counting on you!
 
 
Sincerely,
 
The Climate Reality Project: Pennsylvania Chapters Coalition
  Philadelphia and Southeastern PA Chapter
  Lehigh Valley PA Chapter
  Susquehanna Valley PA Chapter
  Pittsburgh and Southwestern PA Chapter
 
 

Carbon Bigfoot
Reply to  Carbon Bigfoot
September 27, 2021 11:27 am

How about some help replying to the PA Legislature RE letter today below

mkelly
Reply to  Carbon Bigfoot
September 27, 2021 2:45 pm

Not only no, but hell no.

Will that suffice?

H B
Reply to  Carbon Bigfoot
September 27, 2021 4:39 pm

No FRACKING way

Rocketscientist
Reply to  sid
September 27, 2021 9:48 am

Of course its not the fault of transition technologies, its the fault of the fools who mandated them.

Michael Moran
September 27, 2021 6:22 am

I would argue the current crisis in Europe is about shutting down coal and nuclear plants while using natgas to back up wind and solar without making sure you had the natgas supply. Asia has different issues. All the issues David talks about are quite real, but in my opinion have not really hit yet. When oil is at $120 barrel, I think the article should be featured again.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Michael Moran
September 27, 2021 9:38 am

I would argue the current crisis in Europe is about shutting down coal and nuclear plants while using natgas to back up wind and solar without making sure you had the natgas supply.

That is definitely a prime reason, which I’ll re-use in future.

Bryan A
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
September 27, 2021 2:26 pm

They should be Gung Ho for Nuclear for it’s Reliable Carbon Free energy production but then it isn’t really about Carbon is it??

michael hart
Reply to  Bryan A
September 27, 2021 3:35 pm

Indeed not, Bryan A.
Truth, facts, indicating the inevitability of the failure of their project, all these arguments currently still run into the sand when faced with the green dogma.

It is still a case of how painful will it have to become before a re-evaluation takes place?

We are seeing a little bit right now in the UK with fuel prices and panic buying, but they still don’t realise it will be a thousand times more unpleasant when current policies really begin to bite.

Kemaris
Reply to  michael hart
September 27, 2021 6:44 pm

We already know in the United States it will take a Second Democrat War (the First was 1861-65) in order to bring rationality and science back to energy and environmental policy.

Ed Reid
September 27, 2021 6:24 am

Intermittent renewables require backup, to provide power when they don’t. The greater the share of renewables in the generation mix, the greater the requirement for backup. Until there is sufficient storage installed and charged to provide both load following and full backup for periods of renewable unavailability, backup is conventional generation.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Ed Reid
September 27, 2021 6:28 am

That is what happened in Texas in February. As the subsidy miners owning wind and solar were not charged for the needed conventional backup, there was a lack of investment in that.

Ed Reid
Reply to  Tom Halla
September 27, 2021 6:32 am

I anticipate a major fight over who is responsible for installing and maintaining storage and accepting responsibility for reliability of supply.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Ed Reid
September 27, 2021 7:36 am

There won’t be a fight of any kind. Texas is currently an energy market, producers are compensated for what they sell and have no obligation to keep a spinning reserve. This is what keeps wind and solar in business. There would have to be a sea-change in the regulatory market, switching to a capacity market, in order to hedge against the effects of the February events. In that case, producers get paid to have capacity on hand, and wind and solar will wither on the vine.

oeman 50
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
September 27, 2021 8:35 am

I respectfully disagree. Most of the states in the northeast belong to a capacity market in the form of PJM or ISO NE. Wind and solar are growing anyway because they are getting investment and production tax credits.. They are also supported by being always dispatched and are never curtailed. The fossil resources are curtailed as necessary to avoid overgenerating and follow the load that is left over.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  oeman 50
September 27, 2021 8:59 am

100%, absolutely, positively correct! You don’t need a Rube Goldberg capacity market per se, just a level playing field for scheduling energy resources and make-whole penalties for non-performance. Since wind and solar resources are unreliable, their owners will need to partner with reliable sources to ensure performance, the cost of which will need to be reflected in their offers to supply the grid. Again, no favoritism, no subsidies, just a level playing field so that load serving entities (LSEs) can best serve their customers with reliable energy at the lowest cost.

Pat from Kerbob
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
September 27, 2021 9:47 am

Yes, here in AB you never see wind/solar listed in the Dispatched conditional reserve, because it cannot be reserved, and every electron they do produce has to be taken onto the grid.
This is a clear subsidy to the renewables, and a clear penalty to the reliable generators as they have to ramp up and down based on the whims of the wind.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  oeman 50
September 28, 2021 3:26 pm

I see your point, but in the case of Texas, we saw what happens when the market runs out of capacity of any kind. I’m guessing the NE just has too much available backup. With sufficient penetration, wind and solar will cause other providers to shutter their plants, not keep them around “just in case”. This could easily happen in NJ which has one of the most aggressive renewable energy targets (RET). When that happens, capacity markets will look much more attractive. Or something like Frank from NoVA has suggested, which, while doable, still leads to higher prices than a straight capacity market.

Gregory Woods
Reply to  Ed Reid
September 27, 2021 7:02 am

Until there is sufficient storage installed and charged to provide both load following and full backup for periods of renewable unavailability,

Which means NEVER….

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Gregory Woods
September 27, 2021 7:50 am

I’ll file this under “great minds think alike.” ;-D

Bryan A
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
September 27, 2021 2:29 pm

The only really reliable and affordable “storage” is Pumped Storage Hydro but that still requires a reliable daytime energy source to “Pump” the hydro back uphill to “Recharge” the reservoir

Last edited 2 months ago by Bryan A
AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Ed Reid
September 27, 2021 7:49 am

“Intermittent renewables require backup, to provide power when they don’t. The greater the share of renewables in the generation mix, the greater the requirement for backup. Since there will never be sufficient storage installed and charged to provide both load following and full backup for periods of renewable unavailability, backup is conventional generation.”

Fixed for you.

Philo
Reply to  Ed Reid
September 27, 2021 8:46 am

Can’t be done. If it were then “renewables” would include dirty coal and gas and be verboten.

Robert Hanson
Reply to  Ed Reid
September 27, 2021 11:03 am

“Until there is sufficient storage installed and charged” aka ‘when pigs fly’. 🙂

starzmom
Reply to  Robert Hanson
September 27, 2021 2:14 pm

As the t-shirt says, pigs can fly, with sufficient thrust. That is likely to happen before there is sufficient energy storage installed and charged.

pochas94
September 27, 2021 6:33 am

If you like “Green” what you do is make more CO2.

SxyxS
Reply to  pochas94
September 27, 2021 7:52 am

But co2 is the new Hitler, just like Trump or HCQ (because it was promoted by Trump )
so co2 must not be the solution as every good religion (especially atheistic ones)
needs an antagonist it can fight to justify its existence and supremacy,

and co2 is(though some still have not realised) one of several Emmanuel Goldsteins we need to justify a 1984 police state(a very green police state with tons of marxism and a huge bunch of celebrity cheerleaders)

alastair gray
Reply to  SxyxS
September 27, 2021 1:55 pm

spoken like a good prole in the throes of doublethink. Big Brother Biden has a room for you

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  alastair gray
September 28, 2021 3:27 pm

I see your sarcasm detector needs servicing…

n.n
Reply to  pochas94
September 27, 2021 12:10 pm

Ironically, more CO2 means more green as in life, and, in this sociopolitical climate, more Green as in blight, too.

2hotel9
September 27, 2021 6:47 am

Sorry, Alessandro, I always place the blame precisely on who/what it belongs, and since you are involved in supporting this stupidity you share in that blame. When I tell you not to set your house on fire and you do it anyway YOU are at fault for your house burning, not the fire department.

Ron Long
September 27, 2021 6:54 am

Good data, David. In the last 6 months the general price of crude has gone from $48 per barrel to $75 per barrel (NY Crude, other quotes similar). So the question is: are oil/gas producers making more money or less? It is a distinct advantage to extract less of your resource and sell at a higher price than to extract more and sell at a lower price, and this applies to essentially all of the extractive industries. Maybe the Biden Administration (whoever they are, because somebody is writing that stuff Joe struggles to read on the teleprompter) is actually a net benefit for the extractive industries?

MarkW
Reply to  Ron Long
September 27, 2021 7:06 am

The amount of money depends on two things, the market price of what you are selling, and how much of it you are selling. How much of what you make, you get to keep depends on many things as well.
Your insistence on looking only at the current price indicates that you are pushing an agenda rather than looking for enlightenment.

Ron Long
Reply to  MarkW
September 27, 2021 10:29 am

Help me out here, MarkW, what agenda am I pushing?

Ron Long
Reply to  MarkW
September 27, 2021 6:49 pm

OK, I’m tired of waiting, MarkW, so here was my agenda: in the mining business when the commodity price goes up we lower the cut-off grade and mine lower grades, and run low-grade stockpiles through the mill. My agenda was wondering what the crude oil/gas companies do when the price goes up, nothing else.

Gregory Woods
September 27, 2021 7:00 am

And last but not least, a transition that does not work towards having large support from citizens has little chances to succeed

So hanging oneself from a high limb has little chance of succeding?

Pamela Matlack-Klein
September 27, 2021 7:01 am

Amazing how a perfectly adequate energy grid could be so quickly damaged by a bunch of lunatics terrified of the very element that constitutes the primary makeup of their bodies. I clearly recall studying wind farms back in the last century and noting that they did not seem to be very efficient. Often as many as half the turbines would be still. It doesn’t take a genius to realize this is not a good way to provide 24/7 power to the grid. Solar is great for little stuff, garden lights, pond pumps, heating water, even providing power for a single home. But again, where does the energy come from at night, on cloudy days, when the panels are dirty? And speaking of dirty panels, it is hard enough to get someone to wash the windows, WHO is going to climb up on the roof and clean those panels and sweep off the snow and ice? Does anyone even attempt to keep the panels of large solar installations clean? Somehow, I doubt it, if they were doing this it would be touted as a “Green” job.

Philo
Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
September 27, 2021 8:40 am

Nobody bothers to sweep off the snow. The sun comes out at usual and heats up the panels, which dump the snow in a landslide onto the “kids” car. He has to shovel the drive before I drive to work.

MarkW
September 27, 2021 7:02 am

They do everything in their power to restrict if not eliminated oil and gas drilling. Then they can’t figure out why a shortage of oil and gas would be causing price spikes.

ResourceGuy
September 27, 2021 7:15 am

There are some similarities here with the financial crisis in the U.S. It was a combination of Dem policies forcing banks to achieve ever high homeownership rates (Clinton) and racial equity by lowering mortgage credit standards. The financial services industry responded with mortgage-backed securities with blends of high risk loans but still got triple A rating from the rating agencies. There were extreme cases of mostly junk blends of mortgages also packaged and sold as ‘safe’ securities across the world. The resulting financial crisis was blamed on the industry not the policy. Obama shoveled out $1 trillion in stimulus to fix the recession but included hefty bonuses to big city unions and minority voter groups in the process of promoting jobs created or saved. The bad borrowers went back to their subsidized apartments.

The same scenario will play out with the subsidized renewable energy push. The resulting problems will be blamed on the grid operators and fossil fuels while leaving renewable energy policy untouched. Massive stimulus programs will be created to ‘modernize’ the grid while overspending on the factors that destabilized it in the first place. The common theme is ‘don’t point out the policy failures and their costs’. But benefit from the stimulus orgy with special inserts in the spending bill and special connections to the agencies responsible for deployment. A Solyndra in every Congressional district blue pot is the outcome.

Carbon Bigfoot
Reply to  ResourceGuy
September 27, 2021 7:43 am

Do you remember Franklin Raines, CEO of Fannie May. Walked off with a Golden Parachute of $24 million when a federal judge dismissed his embezzlement case instead of 20 years in Leavenworth.

Bill
Reply to  ResourceGuy
September 27, 2021 11:11 am

“It was a combination of Dem policies…

Let me just say it takes a lot of Republicans along with the Democrats to screw up the world this bad. Just look at the Bushs and what the Republicans did to bloat the debt.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  Bill
September 27, 2021 1:34 pm

That was in old dollars. The new dollars will be in Bolivars.

Rusty
September 27, 2021 7:18 am

If the UK and EU had gone down the fracking route the same as the US had there wouldn’t be such a problem.

griff
Reply to  Rusty
September 28, 2021 1:12 am

Except for the adverse effects on the climate and the environmental impact on people living around the fracking sites.

John_C
Reply to  griff
September 28, 2021 9:02 am

So, no effect at all.

DocBud
September 27, 2021 7:24 am

As someone said “no one is an energy island”…

I always get confused, was it David Hume or John Locke?

Philo
Reply to  DocBud
September 27, 2021 8:35 am

No man is and Island
John Donne, in poem, published in “Devotion on Emergent Occassins”, 1624.

A 60 sec. lookup, lazy boy.

Pat from Kerbob
Reply to  Philo
September 27, 2021 9:14 am

See above post by Dave about wishing sarcasm was a font

Rich Davis
Reply to  Pat from Kerbob
September 27, 2021 2:20 pm

We definitely need a sarcasm font, and I’d like it to be my default.

fretslider
September 27, 2021 7:28 am

Creative accounting lumps hydroelectric in with renewables and declares burning wood is carbon neutral etc.

The reason why we [in the UK] are in this energy crisis is because the government chooses to be in it.

We could be energy self sufficient.

nyolci
Reply to  fretslider
September 27, 2021 7:46 am

hydroelectric in with renewables

It is renewable. Are you seriously claiming it’s not?

declares burning wood is carbon neutral

If the wood comes from sustainable woodland management, it is carbon neutral. You burn it, then the newly growing trees sequester the equivalent amount from the atmosphere. Clear cutting a forest is not carbon neutral though.

fretslider
Reply to  nyolci
September 27, 2021 7:59 am

Hydroelectric works – all the other so-called renewables don’t, but surely you knew that, right?

Wood isn’t C neutral, don’t bother with the creative accounting, you’re wasting everybody’s time with that.

nyolci
Reply to  fretslider
September 27, 2021 8:49 am

Hydroelectric works

Its stability is much better, that’s all.

Wood isn’t C neutral

Why?

fretslider
Reply to  nyolci
September 27, 2021 8:52 am

“Its stability is much better, that’s all.”

And stability is precisely what is required. Something your pet renewables are totally incapable of.

Such a waste of money, land and resources.

Wood isn’t C neutral.

At present, 50% (w/w) carbon is widely promulgated as a generic value for wood

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0961953403000333

There’s your answer – wood contains carbon. No fiddling the figures and definitely no doublethink.

Last edited 2 months ago by fretslider
H. D. Hoese
Reply to  fretslider
September 27, 2021 10:09 am

Richard Jagels writes a good “Wood Technology” article for Wooden Boat, such boats replete now with hydrocarbons. He has continually covered and published information on conifers and hardwoods as wooden boats still depend mostly on wood sooner or later. The authors’ “Wood-meal samples drilled from discrete early wood and late wood zones…” come from northern woods (University of New Brunswick, Faculty of Forestry and Environmental Management) near Jagels background, now an emeritus (Maine).

New Brunswick abstract had this range (“hardwood species ranged from 46.27% to 49.97% (w/w), in conifers from 47.21% to 55.2%.”), an “oversimplification of limited application in relation to global warming and the concept of “carbon credits”.”

Reply to  nyolci
September 27, 2021 2:16 pm

Harvesting. Pelletizing. Transporting. Replanting. Fertilizing to compensate for trace mineral depletion.

Ash removal (not all of the “C” is converted to CO2) and environmentally safe disposal of a highly alkaline substance.

ALL producers of CO2. Along with ACTUAL pollution.

Davidf
Reply to  nyolci
September 27, 2021 4:14 pm

In that carbon cycles through the tree to and from the atmosphere – yes, wood is C neutral – if you ignore fuel requirements for harvesting and transporting it between continents. However, it is not sustainable – compare the time required to grow a tree, with the time to burn it. Vast areas required to fuel just one power station, and that land not available for other use. Plantations are pushed into land categories that become less suitable, both from an economic and environmental viewpoint. What can be viable on a small scale, just wont scale up to anything like significantly replacing FF or nuclear. All boils down to TANSTAAFL

Shawn Marshall
Reply to  nyolci
September 28, 2021 5:27 am

You cut down a forest and burn it generating tons of CO2. You plant little saplings. Twenty years later you almost make up the annual deficit in CO2 absorption from the burned forest you destroyed. So you have decades of a shortfall that will never be recovered – it ain’t neutral – but more CO2 is good but the CO2 sequestered in coal is a better source.

observa
Reply to  nyolci
September 27, 2021 8:22 am

It is renewable. Are you seriously claiming it’s not?

No just that it’s old renewables been around for a long time. We grabbed the low hanging fruit with that and not many renewable dam propositions around now. What part of that don’t you get?

nyolci
Reply to  observa
September 27, 2021 8:54 am

No just that it’s old renewables been around for a long time

He claimed “Creative accounting lumps hydroelectric in with renewables”. This is simply not true. Hydro is renewable. It’s more stable than the rest but it has its problems, furthermore the potential capacity of hydro is much less for an average location. What he said about wood was not true either.

fretslider
Reply to  nyolci
September 27, 2021 8:58 am

No, I said…

Hydroelectric works – all the other so-called renewables don’t, but surely you knew that, right?

Last edited 2 months ago by fretslider
Robert Hanson
Reply to  fretslider
September 27, 2021 11:18 am

Hydroelectric works, but only if the green blob allows it to be built, which all right thinking greens oppose. And of course, as of now in California, when a drought puts the water level below the input, it might as well be solar at night.

John Tillman
Reply to  nyolci
September 27, 2021 11:32 am

Concrete dams release lots of CO2. More goes into making their machinery and transporting it.

LdB
Reply to  nyolci
September 27, 2021 6:57 pm

Wrong again Nycoli get your head out of your helmet and do some reading. Hydro is not renewable by definition of Paris Agreement rules yet strangely burning woodchips is. Some energy groups like EIA consider it renewable but for normal emission standards it isn’t classed as renewable and hence the claim is correct.

Your green idiots defined these things not us.

Last edited 2 months ago by LdB
Reply to  nyolci
September 27, 2021 8:44 am

Look at the times a tree burns and a tree grows. There is no balance at all.
Beside CO2, burning trees emitt a lot of NOx, particulates

nyolci
Reply to  Krishna Gans
September 27, 2021 8:58 am

Look at the times a tree burns and a tree grows

Not true. As long as a tree grows, it sequesters CO2. Including newly planted trees. Again, with proper management, this is a carbon neutral (but not a very plentiful) energy source.

burning trees emitt a lot of NOx, particulates

This is true for fossils too, genius.

Reply to  nyolci
September 27, 2021 10:17 am

The quantities in wood are higher as in coal or oil. Normal chemical analyses prove that.

comment image

Wood = Holz
Calorific value = Heizwert
Exhaust value = Abgasvolumen
Wood humidity = Holzfeuchte
Particulates = Staub

Last edited 2 months ago by Krishna Gans
Reply to  nyolci
September 27, 2021 10:25 am

To have something like a balance, you have to plant some dozens trees for one burnig.
If you transform wood into pellets and calculate the respective energy as source of further CO2, you have to plant a hundred or more trees for one burning. (numbers guessed only)
And if you ship the pellets from USA to UK, than forget any idea about Carbon neutral wood burning. It’s not even a joke, it’s BS, point.

Last edited 2 months ago by Krishna Gans
John Tillman
Reply to  nyolci
September 27, 2021 11:38 am

Wood per energy unit produced emits more CO2 than coal, which emits more than oil, which emits more than gas. Methane is practically hydrogen-based generation, more so than carbon.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  nyolci
September 27, 2021 8:56 am

Your generalizations are restrained by the time scale and spatial scale, neither of which you define.

David Brewer
Reply to  nyolci
September 27, 2021 9:10 am

It should be noted that “newly” growing trees have a drastically lower impact on carbon reduction than not cutting down those trees. So if you cut down an acre of trees you’d need to plant multiple acres of trees. But I rather doubt that’s how they do it. In fact they generally plant softwoods to replace hardwoods which exacerbates this problem. Because softwoods are worse than the long lived hardwoods at carbon control.

As for hydroelectric, isn’t that “bad” because it hurts wildlife? I mean solar and wind do also, but greenies haven’t admitted that yet. Regardless, hydroelectric akin to geothermal has extreme limits as to where it can be placed.

Nick B
Reply to  David Brewer
September 27, 2021 1:31 pm

You forgot to mention that cutting and processing should be done using solar powered chain saws and splitters.

Pat from Kerbob
Reply to  nyolci
September 27, 2021 9:12 am

“If the wood comes from sustainable woodland management, it is carbon neutral.”

That will work for about 0.003% of our power needs, it cannot provide much useful power without decimating forests.
Like Germany plans to do.
“we had to destroy the global village to save it”.

That should be the motto of every green energy organization on earth.

One day we will be having Climate Change POLICY crimes against humanity trials. I imagine we will see you there.

Last edited 2 months ago by Pat from Kerbob
Jim Gorman
Reply to  nyolci
September 27, 2021 10:27 am

Where is your evidence that new trees immediately begin to sequester the same amount of CO2 that was emitted when their predessor’s were burned. Especially on an annual basis. I suspect a staggering amount will be added to the atmosphere over the next 20 years while new trees grow and finally sequester all the carbon that was released in the first year.

You are being hypocritic by saying man made CO2 is all of the growth in the concentration, then turning around and saying the burning of trees isn’t part of the concentration increase.

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
September 27, 2021 11:22 am

Don’t complain to us. It’s you “environmentalists” who won’t permit hydro-electric to be counted as a renewable.

ih_fan
Reply to  nyolci
September 27, 2021 12:25 pm

Clear cutting a forest is not carbon neutral though.

You’ve obviously never seen forestry management up close. New trees are planted to take the place of the ones cut down.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  ih_fan
September 28, 2021 6:51 am

Not when you’re clear cutting the trees to replace them with wind farms. It is estimated that nigh on 14m trees were cut down to make way for all the wind farms in Scotland.

John Endicott
Reply to  nyolci
September 28, 2021 3:34 am

“hydroelectric in with renewables

It is renewable. Are you seriously claiming it’s not?”

While I personally would consider it renewable, it’s your fellow greenies that have time and again excluded it from the renewable category. Your beef is with your fellow greenies on that point.

pochas94
Reply to  fretslider
September 27, 2021 10:52 am

I like burning wood for a couple of reasons. As part of good forest management you create clearcuts as fire stops. The wildlife like this because there is more variation in habitat hence more kinds of critters find homes. Also clearing underbrush and fallen trees is expensive, but you can burn it and recover some of the energy the tree used to grow. Probably not carbon neutral because of burning all the fossil fuels to run the harvesting and transportation equipment, but still a benefit for all of the property damage from forest fires avoided. Perhaps it is worth it to have a few wood fueled power plants available for when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow.

AndyHce
Reply to  pochas94
September 27, 2021 1:27 pm

It seems likely that any such generating plant, if intended as backup for wind and solar, would have to burn wood constantly, at some significant level, to be able to respond to the vagaries of what it is supposed to protect against. It surely would take quite a few hours to get a cold boiler up to generating capacity before it could do anything useful.

pochas94
Reply to  AndyHce
September 29, 2021 4:48 am

I agree. There would have to be a continuous supply of chips sufficient to maintain the plant in a “spinning load” condition.

bonbon
September 27, 2021 7:53 am

¨The Climatariat/energy transition/fossil fuel divestment “axis of doofuses” is working 24/7/365 to limit our access to capital.¨

To put is more plainly – the economy is being sanctioned by BlackRock/Mark Carney.

Now consider what sanctions are doing to other economies around the world.

Duane
September 27, 2021 8:00 am

Define “we”.

“We” as in the United States of America does not have an “energy crisis”. We are simply in the up cycle of the endlessly cyclic oil and gas business. There is no lack of energy, our economy is not being held back by a lack of energy, nobody is expiring in their homes due to high heat, and no more than usual will freeze in the dark this winter.

If gas and oil are relatively high priced now, we know it won’t be long before they are low priced again .. then high priced again .. then low priced again … etc. etc. etc.

I get it that in parts of Europe they are experiencing somewhat more serious supply and demand issues, primarily due to disastrous government intrusion into the free market.

What has driven relatively high market demand for oil and gas is the economy, at least in the USA, that has been recovering on a relatively steady but aggressive basis since the end of the COVID recession began more than a year ago. When demand goes up, prices go up – it is always thus. When supply catches up to demand, and almost always overshoots demand, then relative demand drops and prices go back down.

So no, we can’t blame the runup in oil and gas prices this year on warmunism, at least here in the USA. Any more than we can credit warmunism with dropping oil and gas prices next year when supply inevitably catches up with demand.

But in Europe where their governments have been fiddling excessively with energy supplies due to warmunism, yes, warmunism has had an effect there on supplies.

roaddog
September 27, 2021 8:12 am

Fleeing from fossil fuels like a Biden from Afghanistan.

MarkW
Reply to  roaddog
September 27, 2021 11:26 am

like a Biden from responsibility

September 27, 2021 8:40 am

Greens, Russia, Renewables industry forces UK government to “go Nuclear”
The irony — the renewables propaganda was so overdone that the EU and UK got caught with their pants down without enough stable fossil fuel powered electricity. European investors were so afraid gas and coal would be stranded assets that they stopped building reliable power generators. Russia supported the “anti-frack” movement in the West in order to sabotage competition, and now wants to squeeze a hot deal on its Big New Pipeline, so it has reduced the gas supply, so gas prices are headed for record highs and businesses are collapsing, food shortages are predicted. In the short run coal is being reinstated — Drax is thinking of keeping coal plants running. But the only long term path out of the Green-Energy-Quicksand without breaking the sacred “anti-carbon-dioxide” jinx is with nuclear power.
So thus, the greedy power grab and profiteering by the renewables industry, the globalists, the Chinese, the Russians and the Greens may force out cheap coal in the long run, but accelerate the dawn of a new era of nuclear power.

Clyde Spencer
September 27, 2021 8:49 am

The totally fake transition from fossil fuels to Unicorn dust …

David, I think that should be Unicorn pellets. Like what deer produce, albeit infused with magical properties.

Pat from Kerbob
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
September 27, 2021 9:03 am

No, the dust comes from the horn on the forehead, not from the back end.
You really need to read up and have your facts straight before you comment.
🙂

griff
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
September 28, 2021 1:10 am

There is honestly a product called ‘Unicorn poo’, a sort of soft sugar candy, sold to kids in the UK…

Lrp
Reply to  griff
September 28, 2021 1:43 pm

Good one; stick to trivia

Peta of Newark
September 27, 2021 8:57 am

Quote:”Governments across Europe are coming back with support recipes, adopting wide range of measures to ensure that price spikes do not materialize in the pockets of consumers and have spillover effects on #economy.”

Go on, be a devil and give me a clue: How Do They Do That?

Only consumers have any money, where is it all coming from?

Similarly, I don’t ‘get’ this but from cursory reading it sums up the Ongoing Insanity
From BBC:”Fuel supply: UK suspends competition law to get petrol to forecourts”link

Am I the only one who reads that as those muppets actually created A Law, dating from 1998 that has, if not created, exacerbated this crisis?

That it is all = Muppet Made?

Pat from Kerbob
September 27, 2021 9:01 am

Dave points out the problem, the EIA is now pushing the “energy transition” meme and yet their own data shows that fossil fuels aren’t going anywhere even if renewables get built out at the projected rates.
I think its unlikely they can get that much of world energy consumption from renewables, much less replace existing energy infrastructures.
All lies and statistics.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  Pat from Kerbob
September 27, 2021 11:00 am

Do you mean IEA?

Philo
September 27, 2021 9:34 am

Nice job Mr. Middleton.

Bjorn Lomborg’s chart tells the clearest story.

The energy supply will continue to be dominated by coal, oil, and gas. Solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear will continue to be bit players.

The environmental, social, and government players are trying to control what is happening in societies across the world, but is doesn’t play well. Except for China, Japan, and a few other developed countries, the less developed countries have to show some commitment to the UN mandates to keep money flowing.

In the end reality, as always, will come in and force doable actions. Particularly wind power is already showing its big problems as intermittent power. Hopefully the majority of people will see through the curtain
and find the clown pulling strings.

Long term, 10 years or more, can’t be handled like a mistaken press release. It has to deal with reality.

Duane
Reply to  Philo
September 27, 2021 2:25 pm

Actually, no.

Per 2020 US EIA data, nuclear and renewables each account for 20% of total electrical energy supplied, slightly more than coal at 19% .. hardly “bit players”. Natural gas is the largest single source of electrical energy at 40%. No single source dominates.

griff
Reply to  Duane
September 28, 2021 1:08 am

And there are multiple countries in the world where renewables make up 40% and more of electricity supply.

It is only if you concentrate on ‘all energy’ for whole regions of the planet can you make wind and solar look insignificant.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  griff
September 28, 2021 7:10 am

Can’t run a modern economy on only 40% electricity supply. Unreliables will never fully power an advanced economy.

ResourceGuy
September 27, 2021 11:03 am
ResourceGuy
September 27, 2021 12:52 pm
griff
Reply to  ResourceGuy
September 28, 2021 1:06 am

‘Local media in China – which is highly dependent on coal for power – said the cause was a surge in coal prices leading to short supply.’

observa
Reply to  griff
September 28, 2021 4:21 am

A surge in coal prices leads to short supply? One more time for you and the lefties griff. You can control either the price or the quantity but never both at the same time or you’ll get yourselves in a real pickle-
China energy crunch triggers alarm, pleas for more coal (channelnewsasia.com)

September 27, 2021 2:11 pm

Welcome to what happens when you’re not careful what you wish for. Welcome to our bright new ecological Mr Bean world. Welcome to planet eco-cock up. Black comedy as far as the eye can see. Thanks eco-elite numpties! You made our bed, we lie in it.

688A7C17-A212-4913-AE7B-C2D181BB73BB.jpeg
mkelly
September 27, 2021 2:43 pm

Post says:”We can even do this while building out carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS) operations…”

Why?? It is a waste to do this. Wastes money, energy, and the CO2 that could go into growing food.

ATheoK
September 27, 2021 3:00 pm

There has never been an energy transition. We just add more sources of energy to the mix, to feed an ever-growing demand for energy.”

It has never been a “transition”.
Shutting down reliable inexpensive high quality electricity generation, then installing unreliable highly variable extremely expensive poor quality electricity generation is never a “transition”!

At best it is a leap of faith. At worst, it is lemmings leaping off of cliffs. Like climate science, every cliff is high to lemmings.
(No matter what modern science says about lemmings, the current political alleged renewable madness is more lemming like than the original lemmings.

Quilter 52
September 27, 2021 9:13 pm

news for this person. Australia actually is an energy island. We are starting to see emerging problems here to but our useless politicians are too busy pretending they can stop Covid to actually focusing on something they can do something about.

I’ve come to the conclusion it is only going to be when angry consumers armed with pitchforks start heading for their local members of Parliament that something will be done about this. Alternatively it could happen faster if the greenies are detached from their phones because there is insufficient energy to charge them after mum and dad of cooked dinner. I’m a bit older so I know that if I had to choose between hitting my house and cooking dinner to keeping the kids iPads and iPhones charged, heat and food will win every time.

griff
Reply to  Quilter 52
September 28, 2021 1:05 am

For most Australians they can install solar and have the system pay for itself within 2 – 5 years. Alternatively through a finance agreement or drawing down on the mortgage, solar can be funded cash flow positively by the savings it makes on energy bills.

So that’s your power problem over dinner solved, eh?

Is home solar power in Australia still worth it in 2021? | Solar Choice

observa
Reply to  griff
September 28, 2021 1:34 am

Get real griff. Apart from FITs dropping like a stone the Regulator increasingly wants to shut down rooftop solar with the midday duck curve messing with grid stability-
AEMO installs early warning system for surplus solar and rooftop PV shutdowns | RenewEconomy
Those putting on rooftop solar now have to install smart meters so their solar can be cut off from the grid as there’s too much of it at the wrong time and home batteries to use it are uneconomic. Why the unreliables have to rely on gas backup all the time and as the globe does the same up goes the gas price.

John Garrett
September 28, 2021 3:39 am

$80.00+ Brent crude and $6.00+ NYMEX natural gas this morning— and not a word about it from the idiots at NPR.

John Garrett
Reply to  David Middleton
September 28, 2021 6:23 am

Nobody can consistently and accurately predict interest rates, earnings, inflation or petroleum prices.

It is only possible to discern that (in the famous words of Herbert Stein), “If something can’t go on forever, it won’t.” After that, all that’s required is patience— it really is impossible for anybody to accurately and consistently get the timing right.

…and, of course, hindsight is always “20-20.”

It is very easy to get whipsawed and that is something that must be guarded against.

If you’re going to instate a policy of hedging, it is very important to be consistent and follow that policy continuously. I’ve seen far too many people (and companies) start second-guessing themselves when hedges go the wrong way. Don’t get all “smart” and compound the error by ceasing hedging after you’ve instituted hedging policy.

I’ll admit (as a “true, long term investor”) that I’m not a big fan of the practice. I want to own hydrocarbons; I do NOT want to own a Wall Street trading operation.

Last edited 1 month ago by John Garrett
John Garrett
Reply to  David Middleton
September 28, 2021 6:28 am

Mr. Middleton,
I must add that I both enjoy and benefit from your knowledge of science, economics, geology and energy.

Your nummeracy is not coincidental.

Thanks.

bigoilbob
Reply to  David Middleton
September 29, 2021 6:51 am

Oil and gas hedges are a cry for help by subpar managers/owners. They are trying to compensate for their failure to operate competitively by zero sum bargaining with folks who do that for a living. The best run companies go bare.

In fact, I can think of a company that lost ~$20/bbl last quarter on a realized price of over $64/bbl. We’ll never know for sure, but since that was “inclusive of hedges”, it was certainly from a combo of bad operating decisions and bad hedging….

ResourceGuy
September 28, 2021 7:04 am

It looks like a perfect storm of transitioning is shaping up….

European Energy Prices Surge to Records as Supply Crisis Spreads (yahoo.com)

ResourceGuy
September 28, 2021 8:24 am
Keith
September 28, 2021 11:45 am

One consolation for Alessandro Blasi is that his boss apparently listens to him. Fatih Birol, head of IEA today says dont blame the energy transition for the gas price crisis. Ha Ha. If the head of the IEA doesn’t understand this he should resign.

In which universe does shutting down Groningen (Europe’s biggest gas field), or shutting Germany’s nuclear plants after Fukushima (could earthquake risk in Germany be further from that in Japan?), or shutting UK coal plants not affect gas prices? Or the fact that wind supplied only 2% of electricity in the UK over the last month when the installed capacity is 29%. In his defence, Zero Hedge points out that gas supply down the Yamal to Mallnow (Russia to Germany) pipeline is down 57%. Even then, if we blame the Russians for withholding gas supply, which numbskulls allowed them that leverage?

The upside is that crazy energy prices may be the ultimate red pill in waking the public up to this nonsense energy policy.

Gunga Din
September 28, 2021 4:52 pm

Off Topic
“I wish sarcasm was a font”
Here’s an idea.
I’m sure someone out there has the skills to make a font where the “lines” used to make the letters consist of small and repeating “WTF!”.

(If someone does that and makes a million dollars, I settle for 10% … maybe even 5%.) 😎

Gunga Din
September 28, 2021 5:14 pm

So, a warning to all!
“Don’t step in the Green Goo! When it sticks to your feet, don’t blame your shoes!”

John Garrett
September 29, 2021 6:51 am

Interesting report on 2nd quarter financial results for worldwide hydrocarbon producers:
https://www.eia.gov/finance/review/pdf/2021Q2%20Financial%20Review.pdf

Hedging losses of $11 billion in the 2nd quarter were the highest in the 2016-2021 period (see page 11).

Return on equity continues to be substantially lower (1/3rd) than U.S. manufacturers (see page 16).

John Garrett
October 1, 2021 9:19 am

European gas prices hit all-time highs
Fri, October 1, 2021
By Vladimir Soldatkin and Katya Golubkova

MOSCOW, Oct 1 (Reuters) – European gas prices surged to all-time highs on Friday as Russia kept a tight lid on supply, signalling further price pressures on European consumers heading into the winter heating season.

The November gas price at the Dutch TTF hub, a European benchmark, hit an all-time high of 97.73 euros per megawatt hour (MWh) earlier on Friday, up around 400% this year, before easing slightly.

Demand for gas has soared as the post-pandemic recovery meets low inventories with stiff competition for supplies from Asian buyers – China, for example, is seeking more liquefied natural gas (LNG) cargoes despite record prices as its own winter season starts.

The Kremlin reiterated on Friday that Gazprom, whose gas exports outside the former Soviet Union rose 15.3% year on year in the first nine months of 2021, was meeting all its contract obligations in full.

“Gazprom is supplying gas in accordance with customers’ requests under contract obligations,” the company said in separate emailed comments on Friday.

German utility Uniper, one of Gazprom’s biggest clients, confirmed Russia was fulfilling all its contract obligations to it.

%d bloggers like this: