Amy Myers Jaffe, Tufts University
The prospect of conflict between Russia and NATO countries over Ukraine has raised fears of an energy crisis in Europe. Russia provides nearly half of Europe’s natural gas, and some leaders worry that Moscow could tighten the flow if hostilities break out. To weaken Russia’s leverage, the Biden administration is working to secure additional gas shipments to Europe from other sources. Global energy policy expert Amy Myers Jaffe explains how much gas is available and what’s involved in rerouting it.
How dependent is Europe on natural gas, and who are its main suppliers?
Natural gas represents about one-fifth of all primary energy used across Europe. It accounts for about 20% of electric power generation and also is used for heating and industrial processes.
Russia is the largest supplier of natural gas to Europe, sending about 40% of the continent’s supplies shipped by pipeline. The next-largest suppliers via pipeline are Norway (22%), Algeria (18%) and Azerbaijan 9%. Europe also receives natural gas that is liquefied and delivered by ship.
In recent months, European imports of liquefied natural gas, or LNG, from the U.S. and elsewhere reached record levels at around 400 million cubic meters per day. To put that in perspective, a single LNG cargo ship can hold roughly 125,000-175,000 cubic meters of natural gas – enough energy to warm 17 million British homes for one winter day.
What are the biggest constraints for exporters on sending more gas to Europe?
LNG is made by cooling natural gas to minus 260 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 162 degrees Celsius), which reduces its volume by a factor of more than 600. Natural gas is piped to a port, processed in a liquefaction plant and then loaded into specialized insulated, temperature-controlled tankers for shipment by sea.
To receive LNG, an offloading port must have a regasification plant that converts the LNG back to a gaseous form so it can be sent by pipeline to end users. Both liquefaction plants and regasification plants cost billions of dollars and take multiple years to build.
Following a similar crisis in 2009, when a financial conflict with Ukraine prompted Russia to suspend gas shipments for 20 days, Europe substantially expanded its number of regasification facilities to 29. There is still currently space in European regasification receiving terminals to import more LNG, and plenty of storage space to hold imported supply virtually indefinitely. But many of the world’s top suppliers are maxed-out, with little capacity to produce and liquefy more natural gas than they are already moving.
The global LNG market has some flexibility. About two-thirds of all LNG is sold under firm, long-term contracts with fixed destinations. Some major contract holders like South Korea, Japan and China and their suppliers are willing to redirect cargoes to Europe if a further cutback in Russian exports creates a worsening supply crisis. https://www.youtube.com/embed/4jGrXsE6YqQ?wmode=transparent&start=0 A look at the U.S.‘s emergence as a major natural gas exporter, focusing on the company Freeport LNG.
Have suppliers rerouted shipments this way before?
The main example occurred in 2011 when a tsunami triggered a meltdown and radiation release at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. Japan shut down all of its nuclear plants to assess whether they were prepared for similar disasters. LNG suppliers diverted gas shipments to Japan to help it weather the immediate crisis.
Today, analysts say that producers or LNG importers may be able to redirect cargoes that could offset about 10%-15% of any shortfall. Still, such shifts would likely be at premium prices, leaving European consumers with an even steeper bill than they face now.
Will increased U.S. LNG shipments to Europe drive up prices for U.S. consumers?
Existing U.S. LNG export facilities have been running at full capacity for several months. About half of U.S. LNG shipments in December 2021 were destined for Europe, spurred by rising prices in European markets. Previously, a larger share of U.S. LNG exports were sailing to China, where drought-related constraints on hydroelectric power had created a surge in demand for natural gas.
In other words, U.S. sellers have been able to supply more gas to Europe by diverting export cargoes, rather than by selling gas that would otherwise have been used domestically. In my view, if U.S. natural gas prices rise in the coming weeks, winter weather is likely to be a bigger driver than LNG exports.
Wouldn’t Russia harm its own economy by cutting off gas exports to Europe and losing those revenues?
In recent years, Russia has structured its federal budget in a manner that has allowed it to stash away US$630 billion in foreign exchange reserves – cash held by the central bank in other currencies for discretionary use, much like individual savings accounts. Russian leaders can use these funds to weather any new sanctions or unexpected changes in the price of oil.
For example, last year, the Kremlin based its spending on a conservatively low break-even oil price estimate of $45 per barrel, giving itself some latitude. Ultimately, 2021 oil prices averaged $71 a barrel, providing a sizable budgetary windfall.
Through this fiscal strategy, Russian President Vladimir Putin has amassed a war chest to withstand any new round of sanctions, or even the complete loss of natural gas export revenues from Europe for a period of time.
Still, any Russian move to cut off gas exports to Europe might have longer-term consequences. Putin may have hoped that his saber-rattling about natural gas, and the high prices it has triggered, would convince Europeans that Russian gas is vital and can’t be easily replaced with renewable energy. But ironically, this tactic may already have created a lasting distaste that fast-tracks Europe’s pivot to offshore wind, Euro-North African hydrogen hubs and U.S. LNG.
Gazprom, the Russian firm with the largest gas export footprint in Europe, might also find itself adrift in a sea of lawsuits and high penalty charges for breaking its contractual commitments in the wake of a cutoff. That in turn could affect the Russian people, who also rely on Gazprom’s solvency for their winter fuel for heating.
[Over 140,000 readers rely on The Conversation’s newsletters to understand the world. Sign up today.]
Putin may be willing to bet that an energy pricing crisis in Europe will sow popular discontent, scotch the energy transition and help Russia win concessions on NATO’s positioning of troops and missiles. But there is little evidence that Europe will react that way. While Europe’s shift to renewables will take time, it will still be bad news in the long run for Russia, which has 1,688 trillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves left to be exploited for as much as 100 years of supply.
Amy Myers Jaffe, Research professor, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Russia Russia Russia…one wonders if their best trading partners are the Chinese?
Russia should be very worried about China- given that Russia grabbed all that land, all the way to North Korea. China doesn’t want just Taiwan back. Yes, Russia should be very worried.
Are you channeling the Tom Clancy book “The Bear and the Dragon””. Great read.
Can the US find enough natural gas sources to neutralize Russia’s energy leverage over Europe?
Frack Yeah
And the Crimea or shortly Eastern Ukraine will provide a wonderful precedent. No wonder emperor Xi is smiling all the time.
There are vast tracks of eastern Russia, that Russia could not defend if China decides to take it.
I’d give even odds that the Russians would use tactical nukes on any such incursion, just to make a point and there’s probably vast undiscovered resources there anyway.
Any one have any good resources to add about Russian-Chinese border relations?
See above about massive oil deals – hey, even the Poodle can search that!
This is a stupid debate.
The Chinese already ARE taking vast tracts of Eastern Russia esp Siberia.
They don’t need to do anything other than sending millions over the border to extract wood and marry Russians who are happier having a man who doesn’t routinely get drunk and trash the place every other weekend.
This is not rumour, it’s actually happening since Putin’s stupid and senseless occupation of a bankrupt peninsula, (2014) while those same corrupt nuts throw money at the worthless stony beaches and rotten roads of Crimea.
Stasi operatives always were dumbf..cks like Putin’s boss Mielke.
Within 2 decades Russia will have lost a huge slice of Siberia without a single shot being fired and the smile of Xi’s face will be stuck on some wall like Mao.
All fairly true except Russia won’t give that territory up, neither will they nuke it. It’s the closest thing they’ve got to all year round warm water ports without having to go through straits controlled by other nations. As to the Crimea – it is fairly useless except for the Zalyv shipyards, which Russia desperately needs to rebuild it’s navy – remember the fiasco when France retained the helicopter carrier it was building? Zalyv are building 2 of them. If you want to talk about stupid, talk about letting the Zalyv shipyards go in the first place!
‘fraid yer geography is skewed : British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss knows better :
British foreign minister mocked by Russia after geography gaffeLiz Truss said that the UK’s “Baltic allies” were located on the Black Sea, despite them being over 1,000km apart
https://www.rt.com/russia/548225-uk-foreign-minister-geography-gaffe/
There, fixed it for ya.
I was in Crimea in 2020.
First flew to Moscow, then with a Russian airline to Crimea’s new airport, which is totally stunning.
There is still a lot of old stuff, courtesy of Ukraine’s 40 years of mismanagement, oligarch corruption, underinvestment
Now, there are huge changes everywhere.
New paving and small parks with benches everywhere, upgraded sewer systems, upgraded electrical distribution systems, new power plants, upgraded municipal water supply, a new 20-mile bridge, a new world-class airport, new highways, similar to German autobahns.
Putin has made Crimea into a show place, a la Sochi.
In 2021, 7 million Russians and about one million Ukrainians, did not going to Turkey or Egypt, but to Crimea, because of the many new tourist accommodations and attractions
It was Russian territory before it was Chinese and lastly Russian again
Remember the great Wall of China, once the border is well inside. Modern china
This was the treaty where Russia gave up the Amur region
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Nerchinsk
The American left loved Russia when it was the nexus of the Soviet Union and world communism, so it’s no surprise that Russia has become anathema since the USSR dissolved and relegated Marxism to the ash heap of history. Russia’s being less than ‘woke’ re. social issues has only reinforced the left’s hatred.
The American left still loves anyone who opposes the US.
China hasn’t given more than lip service to communism for over a decade, though Xi seems to want to bring it back.
Socialism has two faces: Marxism and Fascism.
Marxism is the triumph of monopoly capitalism: Everyone must work for the company. Everyone is paid in company script. Everyone must buy at the company store.
Fascism and Nazism are a variation where businesses are allowed to exist so long as they strictly obey the Party line and strictly support the Party, vide ESG.
China is now a Fascist country.
Fascism and Nazism are a variation where businesses are allowed to exist so long as they strictly obey the Party line and strictly support the Party,
That sounds familiar…
Yes. The Trumpism take over of the Republicans…..wo beside you if you don’t become a vassal to the great man….the world’s greatest genius …the Fuhrer
Nonsense. Facism is an extreme right wing ideology…Mussolini, Hitler, Franco all right wing and strenously opposed by left and socialist parties.
Fascism is an ideology separate from either right or left wing politics – historically it has been seen to be of the right but it can be of the left as well.
Russia just passed a law making it much easier to start and successfully run small businesses, such as making consumer goods, to tap the benefits of the Russian entrepreneurial spirit, and reduce expensive consumer goods imported from France, Italy, etc.
Russian hates woke, the main reason it closed down the foreign-funded NGOs that were preaching Western wokeness to Russians.
Russia & China have just signed another 30 year gas supply deal – the East prospers, the West withers away
Has a gas pipeline from Russia to China been built yet? Thought one was under construction.
The east Siberia pipeline was finished 2 years ago
The new contract with China requires a new pipe about 1500 km
While the US stupidly ended the Keystone pipeline, Russia and China are building new ones.
Another pipeline system will go from Russia to India, and connect with various other countries
The high gas spot prices in Europe are entirely due to Brussels EU bureaucrats telling EU countries NOT to sign long-term pipeline gas supply contracts with Russia, because it would sent the wrong virtue signal regarding EU environmental policies.
Russia made sure to deliver slightly MORE gas than required by existing long-term contracts, to preserve its reputation of reliable supplier.
This has been acknowledged by Brussels, Germany, etc., because of recorded pipeline system operating data.
When wind and solar underperformed in Europe, countries used more gas, withdrew gas from storage, and spot prices rapidly increased to very high levels.
Thus far, only 4 countries signed NEW long-term contracts, at very attractive prices, compared to spot prices.
More countries will follow when THEIR contracts are near their end.
Russia has invested about $50 billion in gas production systems and thousands of miles of pipeline systems, which require long-term contracts to pay for them.
Russia could have delivered more gas to the EU to depress spot prices, but that would not make good commercial sense, on a long- term basis
In the mean time, LNG carriers are being diverted to Europe that can supply about 20 to 30 billion cubic meter per year, but Russia supplies Europe with about 200 bcm/y.
That situation will last at least 5 to 10 years, because it would take that long to buildup world LNG production, AND CARRIERS, AND SENDING PORTS, AND RECEIVING PORTS, AND CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING PIPELINE SYSTEMS
Or the Europeans could tell the greens to pound sand, and do fracking and nuclear.
Yes, the question should be how fast can Europe get its fracking going.
Yes, that’s right.
This article underscores many of the problems of the world, namely that almost all scarcities of goods essential to life, even food, are the result of political maneuverings.
I do not think it was the author’s purpose to offer a solution, but to bolster a political position.
Rah Rah for our side.
That is actually the most likely outcome. The “gas” of greenism has been let out of the balloon, resulting from cold winters, high prices, and regional security threats from Russia. Euro leaders are either going to get the memo, or the voters will replace them.
Brilliant idea and one that could have been front and centre of policies in the EU and UK if only the USA hadn’t been committed to being their no.1 source of gas and (at times) been actively opposed to European fracking. Now it’s just a little bit late in the game to suggest a ‘do-over’. The best option is and always has been to ramp up domestic European gas production and reduce reliance on outside sources; the recent ‘spot price’ disaster is proof that no outside source of gas will provide sustained energy security.
In your opinion, the only reason why the EU has opposed fraking for decades, is because the current US administration is opposed to it?
Their local politicians and activists had absolutely no role in those decisions?
Not quite but given the way that EU and UK politicians have been sucking up to the Obama and Biden regimes as well as insisting on USA taking the lead on the climate change race to the bottom, it’s certainly a contributing factor. If the USA had championed energy security and fracking, rather than dependency on US imports then it might have led to a different outcome.
The only position that the US has taken is that reliance on Russia for your energy needs is a stupid thing to do.
Nobody need the $US to ‘take care of us’ – clean up yer own disaster!
Reading comprehension is not your thing, is it.
And lifted the ban on exports of US gas just as they were condemning the reliance on Russian gas. Weirdly enough, it may have been Hillary Clinton’s efforts to push European countries to use US companies to do the fracking that resulted in a pushback.
There were many reasons for lifting the ban on exporting gas. Not the least of which it was just plain stupid.
Do you honestly believe that everything the US does it does with the goal of dominating Europe?
No. Just the European markets to maximise profits.
The administration is not interested in supplying all available sources of non-Russian natural gas because it just withdrew support from the EastMed pipeline from Israel to Cyprus to Europe. Go figure.
Yuh, nothing is more important than stopping fossil fuels. On Tony Heller’s site, he often shows a clip of Biden telling a young woman that when he takes office he’s gonna stop all fossil fuels- and he said, “I guarantee it”.
Jim Quinn runs that clip fairly often, too.
As I recall, he walks up to a teenage girl, grabs her hand, asks her to look into his eyes and he “guarantees that he will end fossil fuel.”
He’s worse than sniffer in chief.
but in doing so, and giving us all this inflation- he’s going to end his presidency- I just hope the Republicans will find someone other than Trump- a younger, good looking, charming guy who will have similar policies as Trump- must be somebody out there
Someone who likes sunshine, orange juice and freedom, more importantly.
Preferably a Black woman, hopefully business woman. Would love to see the leftists heads explode.
Yes, agreed. Someone who realizes that he needs to reduce himself as a target and manage his image so that the MSN does not have something to detract from his policies.
You’re dreaming. Any Republican who threatens the socialist agenda is going to be smeared relentlessly by the left and the leftwing media, just like they did Trump.
It’s standard operating procedure for the Left. Character assasination is all they have.
They will turn the golden boy, DeSantis, into Hitler in fairly short order.
Those lies must be effective. We have people on our side who whine that they don’t like Trump because he attracts attacks, but any Republican who threatens the socialist status quo is going to get the same treatment.
So give up on the Left being nice to our chosen guy, and vote for Trump because Trump is a proven commodity who gets things done and is the most innocent man in politics and the most unencumbered, proven by the Left’s constant failure to pin even one crime on him, despite their best efforts, which are ongoing, btw.
Trump is the man. DeSantis can be his vice president. Then DeSantis can show us if he is presidential material. I think he is but I haven’t seen any foreign policy positions from him so he is still a question mark in some categories. But I do like him. And I do think Trump is the better choice at this time.
Yes, give up on the Left being nice to anyone on the Right who threatens their agenda. It’s not going to happen. It’s going to be just like the way they did and are doing Trump. There will be no change. It’s hatred and fear from the Left all the way down.
Look how the media attacked both Bush’s, even though compared to Trump, the Bush’s were practically on their side.
Excellent point. GW wouldn’t even fight back, and the Left still excoriated him at every turn.
“Mission Accomplished” comes to mind.
After the Iraq war, the Left completely distorted what was going on, making it out like the “Mission Accomplished” banner hanging on the aricraft carrier, Abraham Lincoln, was meant to praise Bush personally, rather than praise the aircraft carrier and the crew of the Abraham Lincoln for their actions during the war. And Bush did nothing to push back on this distortion of reality, which stands as “truth” today.
I see where GW has donated money to many of the Republicans in congress who opposed Trump (none of whom will be in congress after November). GW is another one who can’t see past the leftwing propaganda. His kind of Republican is eager to please the leftwing media in hopes they won’t be attacked, but it never happens.
The leftwing media use these useful idiots like GW and McCain and then throw them to the wolves when they are no longer useful.
It’s pathetic how some Republicans kowtow to the leftwing media. To them, the leftwing media is the Voice of Authority, so they want to be in its good graces, so they turn into sniveling, useful idiots for the socialist left and adopt their way of looking at the world.
Exactly right.
Even if they have to make up stuff, the MSN will do everything in their power to distract from the actual issues and policies.
These guys would make Jesus himself look like a blood thirsty, racist, warmonger.
The Kavanaugh hearings were the template. The future is littered with lies and fabrication.
Kavenaugh? Are you not old enough to remember the Bork and Thomas hearings?
Similar policies but without the drive to make them happen? That would describe President Reagan who allowed himself to be flummoxed on immigration, and Governor Schwartenegger when all three of his propositions went down in flames. in the latter case, he transitioned smoothly into being a RINO.
I’d rather someone familiar with the art of the deal, who didn’t let opposition stop him from tightening border security and building (some) of the wall. Who ignored the bureaucrats and made are allies and enemies bargain with us. Who found alternatives to going to war.
You’re asking for a nice guy. Old American adage: Nice guys finish last.
Watch coal make a big comeback after all of this… there is enough of that to keep civilization going for centuries.
Japan Races to Build New Coal-Burning Power Plants, Despite the Climate Risks
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/03/climate/japan-coal-fukushima.html
And all will get the “green” label as they can be retrofitted to produce dispatchable hydrogen when the technology matures. (lol)
I don’t know about hydrogen, but coal is OK and the alternative that must not be mentioned.
Hopefully the new plants will all be high efficiency super critical units – so government and industry can expound that fact every chance they get, to steal back the narrative from the basically insane environmentalists.
I’d like to see a clean coal mining revolution.
In the west, government regulations require restoration of all open pit mines.
I’d worry more about the D’s desire to cut off all sources of fossil fuel in the USA than whether the EU can sustain itself through their own stupid policies.
“Can the US find enough natural gas sources to neutralize Russia’s energy leverage over Europe?”
Not with the current administration. Yes, if Trump was still President.
There ya go. That is the answer. Trump was in the process of setting up that scenario when he was cheated out of office. And the kung flu arrived about the time Trump was setting up fair trade with China. See the connections of the dots. With the dems help, of course.
Well there is always the Eastern Mediterranean to consider:
Egypt and Cyprus to boost Eastern Med gas ties
Greece, Israel, Cyprus sign EastMed gas pipeline deal
“some leaders worry that Moscow could tighten the flow if hostilities break out”
Actually, the EU should stop the flow the minute Russian troops move into Ukraine. It’ll hurt Russia more than the EU.
I believe that Putin is smarter than that….
He is- he’s playing “extreme poker”.
As a very famous diplomat once said about international affairs “America plays poker, Russia plays chess.” And apologies if I misquoted.
But the east Asians really play the long game. One of the east Asian car companies- I can’t recall which- I read doesn’t do 5 year plans- instead, it has a 250 year plan. And China certainly has the same perspective since its civilization is the oldest of all. Read Michael Pillsbury’s “The Hundred-Year Marathon” subtitled, “China’s Secret Strategy to Replace America as the Global Superpower”. It just so happens, I was born on the day China became The People’s Republic of China- 10/1/49 so I watch what it does. :-}
A company that’s planning 250 years into the future, is a company that’s wasting resources. Even 5 year plans are iffy.
Even 5 year plans are iffy.
I suggest that depends on the product. Whiskey comes to mind.
Putin is just a nasty little midget who has still a Stasi heart, and control freak training.
Such stupid little dictators don’t realise whilst presiding over a country with only the GDP of Italy, they can’t punch higher than the weight of Berlusconi.
(which explained the long term friendship, quite apart from the climate being a ton better in Tuscany than it ever will be in miserable grey Moscow)!
The Russophiles are out in force today.
So is the Russophobe-in-chief, I noticed!
Moscow was just formally rated this week by the United Nations Human Settlements Program ranking as the third (3rd) most “prosperous” city (after 1st Singapore & 2nd Toronto). The ranking was on the basis of six (6) categorical indices.
Moscow was even ranked first (1st) in two of those categories. Namely Moscow came out best in “quality of life”, comprising features like education, science, crime rate and green area cover; as well as best in “infrastructure”, comprising features like access to internet and access to public transportation.
And pray do you live in Moscow?
It’s all very well to warble on about stuff you know nothing about, but I have, and I don’t want to any more.
Moscow is a desperate place to live with low wages, long hours 6 months of miserable grey weather, and an obsolete road system which means sitting in jams for hours if you need to drive around the Mkad.
And you are quoting what?
The United Nations??
WTF!
Unless Nordstream2 is online first, my money is on Ukraine cutting off the flow to Europe and blaming it on Russia.
they did that before, and now with all those helmets from germany surely would not bite the hand that protects it?
Not really true for several reasons. Although it is true that your proposal would cause different kinds of problems for Russia, the various EU member states and other countries.
All because Biden shut down the US fracking to please his global warming masters. A class action from the Europeans who die of cold to sue the green idiots??
So must redouble our fracking efforts to serve Europe.
US fracking = good. Euro fracking = massive earthquakes and polluted water supplies and global warming = bad.
It’s the same with CO2. Euro produced CO2 = bad. Chinese produced CO2 = good.
Import the gas and goods is the new Euro model.
I know something that cost billions and takes years to year a to build.
Small nuclear power plants with massive generating capacity for a 100 years.
This article makes Russia sound like the adult in the room. The Europeans are simply insane. Their green energy fantasy is damaging their economies and they want Russia to step in and help them. They then go on to brag that once they build enough wind and solar facilities they will simply kick Russia to the curb. How insane must your behavior be before you are sent to the padded room? In the economic system advocated by Western democracies Russia has every right and indeed the responsibility to squeeze maximum profit out of its customers while obeying the law and honoring contracts.
“How insane must your behavior be before you are sent to the padded room?”
Good question.
The Madness of Crowds.
Very weak analysis.
No mention of Power of Siberia 2 – a 55 bcm pipeline to China that (not coincidentally) matches the 55 bcm capacity of Nord Stream 2.
No mention of what the baseline LNG cost per 1000m3 is.
No mention of the capacity of existing and in process LNG terminals in the US, or the lack of LNG terminals in key portions of the EU.
Amy Myers Jaffe is another yapper and professional pundit.
Until I see evidence to the contrary, I’d classify her as another innumerate, economic illiterate and member of the green blob who are reeling from a recent sharp dose of reality in the form of skyrocketing EU gas and electricity prices that they failed to anticipate.
From her website:
Amy Myers Jaffe
Managing Director, Climate Policy Lab
Research Professor
The Fletcher School
Tufts University
Current Research Projects
Digital Technology Innovation and Energy; Energy and Climate Risk in Global Credit
Markets. Decarbonization strategies for transportation. Hydrogen networks and natural gas
infrastructure. COVID 19 and oil markets. Role of SOEs in climate policy.
Education
Princeton University (1980) Bachelor of Arts, Near Eastern Studies and Arabic
The article mentioned that the US LNG terminals have been maxed out for awhile and that Europe has little spare capacity.
I don’t see how the exact current price of LNG matters in the context of this article.
I also don’t see how the existence of Siberia2 makes a difference in the context of this article.
The base price of LNG matters a lot – it means the cost of natural gas transported this way has a baseline price which is significantly above “normal” natural gas prices.
Equally, Power of Siberia 2 means that if Germany doesn’t approve Nord Stream 2, Russia can just send the NG that was meant to go through there, to China instead.
Note the amount of NG transited through Ukraine in 2020 was…55.3 bcm.
So geopolitically and economically, US LNG is hardly a game changer for Europe.
Kinetrex, an LNG supplier, says natural gas cost is “only” 30% of LNG cost. That implies LNG cost is more than 3x more than base NG input – although not clear if that is proportional to the NG price or not.
I’d guess not since we’re talking about refrigeration = electricity and transport = oil, but it seems both of those are also going to get more expensive in the energy cycle we are in.
https://www.kinetrexenergy.com/post-7-myths-using-lng/
Agree on the wobbly bit. Above I tried to fill in the gaps in the threadbare weave….
Is this pipeline now supplying gas to China? Haven’t heard anything about it if it is now operational.
Power of Siberia 1 is already operating; Power of Siberia 2 is a 55 bcm expansion just as Nord Stream 2 is an expansion on Nord Stream 1.
All 4 projects are 55 bcm design capacity.
From the article: “The prospect of conflict between Russia and NATO countries over Ukraine has raised fears of an energy crisis in Europe.”
I don’t think there is going to be a direct conflict between NATO and Russia. It will be another proxy war with Russians fighting the Ukranians and NATO supplying Ukranians with arms and money.
The Ukranians say they are going to put up a fight and I don’t doubt it. Putin is not going to have everything his way if he enters Ukraine. The last time Russians entered Ukraine in 2014, they didn’t do so well, and that’s according to their own after-action reports. And Putin’s popularity suffered during that time as Russian troops came home in bodybags.
What the U.S. and NATO should do is give the Ukranians all the weapons they need to fight for themselves, and the U.S. and NATO should greatly strengthen its miliary capabilities in the NATO nations surrounding Ukraine as a means of deterring further adventures of Putin. A strong defense setup and a strong will, will deter Putin.
Putin can attack Ukraine but he should probably think twice about doing so, and maybe he is thinking, and is just bluffing military action to see what kind of reaction he can get from the West.
Putin does not hold all the cards.
Both Russian and Ukrainian armed forces have improved since 2014, but Russia’s advantages are still overwhelming. Ukraine’s Ground, Air Assault and Special Forces have gained strength, but its Air Force and Navy remain weak.
The entire Ukraine military has been run into the ground with complete neglect for decades. Years of having the military budget plundered by the oligarchs and endemic corruption in the conscription system have taken their toll. What there is of the Ukraine military has vastly improved since 2014 but while the oligarchs are selling upgraded apc’s and tanks to Iraq and Pakistan, the Ukraine military is left with equipment from the 1960’s and 70’s. The Ukraine military tries to talk up it’s game but will still only be a speed bump on the way to the Black sea. Having said that, I still believe that this is sabre rattling and brinksmanship on Putin’s part – if he meant war, he’d have moved far more men and equipment into the area.
Even worse the Ukrainian pipelines are on the point of literally bursting if more volume is pumped – no maintenance for decades. Ukraine’s economy is utterly ruined well below Soviet levels in 1990.
Bonbon has never ever been anywhere near Ukraine, but thinks he is an eggspert.
Hey how about going there some day instead of shouting shit from your St Petersbourg best mates??
Miss Piggy – the Ukraine pipes are Schrott – geddit?
Russia could indeed swiftly overrun eastern and southern Ukraine, but then he has to occupy those regions. This would be a huge drain on his military manpower, at least until a pro-Russian local militia could be sttod up.
Putin is now increasing the number of troops. Current US estimate for those close to the borders is about 130,000 soldiers. Should he decide to invade, he can move more ground and air forces in.
But he also has about 75,000 paratroopers in a separate service, naval infantry and Spetsnaz commandos. He can bring sufficient force to bear for long enough to conquer at least half the country. But he might settle for a third.
Russian airborne squad. They have their own air-dropped armored vehicles. Their equipment is being upgraded.
In an invasion, the descent force would capture Dnepr dams and bridges, cutting off Kyiv’s power supply.
The picture is of a light air assault unit in their plane. The heavy airborne units are the ones with airborne apc’s, assault guns and various other airborne vehicles. I am aware of those forces, as well as the Razvedki and Reydoviki of the airborne and naval Spetznaz units. The airborne equipment has already been upgraded, to the point that they are mostly equipped with new BMD-3’s and the troubled BMD-4’s (and it’s still unknown if the 3 will be replaced by the 4 or if it will be used as a fire support vehicle).
If Putin does invade, he will knock out the Ukraine military, remove the current regime and install one leaning towards Russia – probably supported by Eastern Ukraine and Crimean militias. He won’t need to conquer all the country, least of all occupy it all.
Ye are silly. Yer game only exists in Meta!
They’re paratroopers, but they drop separately from their armored vehicles. Against Ukraine, the infantry would probably drop from smaller transport aircraft, while the bigger Il-76s and Antonovs (from Ukraine!) would deliver vehicles and heavy weapons. They can also descend from helicopters, as do Ground Forces air assault brigades.
I doubt that Putin intends to occupy the whole country, but he would need to leave troops in the regions he does take, since the rump Ukraine would raid the seized territory, and NATO might support guerrillas.
Just setting up a puppet regime wouldn’t stop what’s left of Ukraine from fighting back. But he can cut off its gas and electric power, should he go as far as the Dnepr dams. However pro-Russian Ukrainian volunteers could help ease his manpower crunch until a Novorossiya national militia be stood up.
Here’s a good recent troop-to-task calculation, assuming only the eastern third of the country be occupied, plus the Dnepr delta and possibly the Black Sea coast all the way to Transnistria.
https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2022/02/03/troop-to-task_a_russian_invasion_of_ukraine_815091.html
BMD-4M is an improvement.
You’re assuming that Putin wants more of Ukraine whereas I don’t think he does. All he really wants from Ukraine are the Crimean shipyards and a government that won’t go joining NATO or the EU at any point. To accomplish that he could airland troops to seize an airport near Kyiv, land heavier units (even the airborne don’t like airdropping vehicles too often) whilst pushing forces overland to join up and use the airborne forces to seize government buildings and key people in Kyiv. When he’s installed an eastern dominated puppet government he can pretty much withdraw knowing that even in a worst case scenario, Ukraine won’t be joining NATO and won’t be used as a base against Russia. Meanwhile, he’ll carry on building the large naval ships that he needed the Crimea for.
Best way to screw up Putin’s plans – get Turkey onside to enforce a ban on military ships passing through the dardanelles.
And yes the BMD 4 is an improvement, in that it can now fire a missile through the barrel of the main gun, rather than climbing onto the exposed turret roof to fire it. Rather an expensive way of accomplishing that though, wasn’t it?
Russian tanks have long fired ATGMs through their main armaments, plus BMP-3.
International treaties require the Dardanelles be kept open.
Putin has already made it impossible for Ukraine to join NATO, just as he did in Georgia, by creating border disputes with separatist enclaves. As long as he has Crimea and the Donbas, NATO’s own rules make Ukrainian membership impsossible.
There is or was a lot of industry in East Ukraine that Putin would like to reacquire, and the Black Sea coast would improve his strategic position. Plus, Odessa is an important port.
He might well attack all Russian speaking-majority oblasts. Or not. There’s a lot of risk and benefit to calculate. Dictators often make calculation errors, as did H!tler in June and December 1941.
John, in the discussion about airborne forces, I agree that the BMD-4 is an improvement for the reason I gave specifically because neither tanks nor BMP-3’s are air-droppable (more than once anyway). This gives airborne forces a much needed capability that they didn’t have before.
As an indication of Putin’s intentions towards the rest of Ukraine, he hasn’t made any attempt to integrate Donetsk and Luhansk into the Russian Federation – he’s virtually ignored them. I still maintain that he got exactly what he wanted in Crimea and isn’t after territorial gains in the rest of Ukraine.
The USA want to sell it own energy to europe, so they provoke Putin. USA has become a warmonger. It is Soros/Gore which is behind this.
How exactly has the US provoked Putin?
Do you have any other paranoid fantasies that you want to push while you’re at it?
Muller and Bonbon are just Russian trolls.
follow the money.
They print crap like this all over all the media from a warm office paid for by Prighozin, so they don’t have to spend their days in Kupchino out of work.
Trolls with piggish hooves are something else. Cop on!
The US is for everyone see a desperate warmonger. See Price’s presser here :
Ned Price’s Verbal Duel with Matt Lee at US State Department Press Briefing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuvb3FEHz3U
Basically trust $us….
I see your hatred of Britain and the US has once again caused you to get into bed with whatever fascist is currently in the headlines.
The Smell of a Dodgy Dossier – Blair’s pass to hell, has obviously spooked even establishment reporters – been there done that. Remember the late Powell saying he knew it was a lie and ordered the worst mistake as Trumps said.
Bad idea to play Londons’s Harlequin, what?
I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that this made sense to you at least.
It made sense to Powell, and look at the disaster! Blair, you know, the recently ordained Order of the Garter guy with Iraq WMD dodgy dossiers?
More than 1 million know what Dodgy Dossier’s mean :
Tony Blair to have his “Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter” rescinded
https://www.change.org/p/the-prime-minister-tony-blair-to-have-his-knight-companion-of-the-most-noble-order-of-the-garter-rescinded
Time to do some reading, eh Harlequin?
“What are the biggest constraints”
The ideology of Net Zero.
Like the British
“German government upholds fracking ban”
https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/german-government-upholds-fracking-ban/
Few of our politicians have any clue on the history of Crimea, all the whipped up fear of a war is another handy distraction from problems at home. Putin needs the money.
Lots of natural gas in the Uk but the government decides to import some from Russia and power through cables from France.
The UK gets most of its imported gas from Qatar.
Norway actually.
Have a look at Maggie’s British Aerospace Al Yamamah deal – oil for weapons. The name means Dove of Peace curiously, and that fund vanished to the Caymans, became the terrorist slush fund. 9/11 cost a bundle!
Even the Grauniad :
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/aug/24/declassified-papers-reveal-real-reason-for-thatchers-dash-to-riyadh
No, the question is will morons running European countries allow their citizens to access the natural gas and oil they ALREADY have, much less develop more.
Weak analysis. The problem is Europe, no matter what the US can or might do. Fracking bans. Halt to new North Sea gas field development. Lack of regasification facilities. Shutting coal and nuclear to become even more gas dependent backing ruinables.
And Tufts does not call the EU on their suicidal bent.
The question is whether Europe has reached peak stupidity.
It’s a race between stupid policies and survival. One can hope that sanity will prevail soon before the populace suffers.
I’m all for letting the Europeans freeze. That would be an excellent object lesson for the rest of the Climate Nutters. Also quite pleased to see them push forward on hydrogen so they can demonstrate all the problems that will plague that endeavor.
And who are you to ‘let people freeze’ ? What kind of megalomania is this?
Oh don’t start down that road before working out if the USA might be heading into the same insanity. California should be an object lesson for us all except it’s just somehow managing to scrape through.
By importing much of its electricity from states that are less nutty.
And that 1.7 T cubic feet of gas is the proven conventional reserve. While they even haven’t started fracking yet.
Dutch Plan To Boost Gas Output At Earthquake-Prone Site Sparks Anger
https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Dutch-Plan-To-Boost-Gas-Output-At-Earthquake-Prone-Site-Sparks-Anger.html
Anger not from consumers?
What the Europeans don’t want the Chinese will buy.
This analysis is starting with the presumption that Europe isn’t already in an energy crisis without Russian interference. Off to a shaky start there, overlooking a lot of factors and downplaying others. One of them the blaming of high U.S. prices on weather while downplaying the effect of Biden’s supply-side war. That is such a key thing to downplay here. Makes me wonder about a misinformation plant.
I appreciate your article but there seems to be a mistake in the following:
“In recent months, European imports of liquefied natural gas, or LNG, from the U.S. and elsewhere reached record levels at around 400 million cubic meters per day. To put that in perspective, a single LNG cargo ship can hold roughly 125,000-175,000 cubic meters of natural gas – enough energy to warm 17 million British homes for one winter day.”
This means that 2300 cargos of LNG are arriving each day? Not likely. Maybe you are comparing volume of gas at STP to volume of liquified gas during shipping? The difference is about 600x.
I noticed the same thing, and made the same assumption as you, that the author was accidentally equating, or at least juxtaposing, the two in a confusing way. By my math an LNG cargo ship with 125,000 would be 75M cubic meters converted, so 4-5 ships per day depending on size.
Maybe the ‘author’ flatulently meant LNG at room temp.?
“While Europe’s shift to renewables will take time” … understatement of the century … Try “never” …
The trouble is the time it takes for that realisation to sink in – in the meantime, a lot of damage is being done.
To voters wallets – you know, the bit that hurts….
Precisely, TDL.
Given, the current and reasonably likely for the foreseeable future technology for “Wind, solar, etc.” (see “Total Energy Supply chart above), Europe’s shift to “renewables” will never happen.
Its essential to recognize that as a population freezes to death, its energy requirements decline.
Hmm. Depends – there is often a sharp spike in energy used shortly after death but it’s only a brief occurrence!
You make the bed you plan to lie in.