- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
using natural gas to hurt russia
Posted on 3/5/14 at 8:29 am
Posted on 3/5/14 at 8:29 am
quote:
One immediate step the president can and should take is to dramatically expedite the approval of U.S. exports of natural gas,” House Speaker John Boehner, an Ohio Republican, said today in a statement.
quote:
“Having more of our gas reach the market will reduce volatility and provide diversity,” Karen Harbert, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s 21st Century Energy Institute, told reporters today on a conference call. The institute released a report citing Ukraine has having the least energy security among the top 25 energy-consuming nations.
American companies need the U.S. Energy Department’s permission to export liquefied natural gas to countries that lack a free-trade agreement with the U.S., such as those in the European Union. LNG-export projects also need to pass a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission environmental and safety review.
The Energy Department is weighing approval of at least 24 applications from companies including Cheniere Energy Inc. (LNG) and Kinder Morgan Inc. (KMI) to export the liquefied version of the fuel in tankers after approving six applications since 2010, including five within the past year.
well that just makes too much sense for our government to actually do it. It weakens russia, helps a potential new ally in ukraine and helps our economy. Am I wrong?
LINK
SIAP
5
Posted on 3/5/14 at 8:30 am to willthezombie
quote:
Cheniere Energy Inc.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 8:32 am to willthezombie
Obama more likely to provide funding for Solyndra's new Ukrainian plant.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 8:33 am to Holden Caulfield
quote:
Obama more likely to provide funding for Solyndra's new Ukrainian plant.
unfortunately you are probably right.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 8:43 am to willthezombie
If Ukraine is having trouble paying its bill for cheap natural gas from Russia, how is it going to pay for LNG shipped halfway around the world?
Second, there is no LNG terminal in Ukraine. Construction was to have started this year with completion in 2018. Even then it will have a capacity to supply less than 30% of Ukraine's needs.
Second, there is no LNG terminal in Ukraine. Construction was to have started this year with completion in 2018. Even then it will have a capacity to supply less than 30% of Ukraine's needs.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 8:46 am to Layabout
quote:
If Ukraine is having trouble paying its bill for cheap natural gas from Russia, how is it going to pay for LNG shipped halfway around the world?
Not necessarily Ukraine. This would be more beneficial for Germany, which is going to need some big incentives to back any economic measures that harm Russia's gas exports.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 8:51 am to TigerPride10
quote:
If Ukraine is having trouble paying its bill for cheap natural gas from Russia, how is it going to pay for LNG shipped halfway around the world?
Not necessarily Ukraine. This would be more beneficial for Germany, which is going to need some big incentives to back any economic measures that harm Russia's gas exports.
IMO, this not only helps Ukraine but also the rest of europe. According to the ppl on CNN the last few days unless we send in the troops (which we are not) this is going to more than likely be a long drawn out situation. Russia's economy is driven on natural gas and oil with their main customers being europe. If we started exporting NG than the price would fall and that would hurt russia' economy similar to what Reagan did in the 80's.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 9:00 am to willthezombie
It only makes sense if LNG exports to Eastern Europe are cheaper that what Putin can sell his natural gas for. I estimate that price to be around $8 per MMbtu. I believe Japan is currently paying -$8/MMbtu for U.S. LNG. Or, Eastern Europe may be willing to pay a premium for western supplies of NG just to hurt Russia. Russia is probably selling to Eastern Europe at current prices: -$4.7/MMbtu. $3.3/MMbtu is a heafty premium. I seriously doubt they are willing to pay that premium.
But it's a good excuse to get more LNG plants online.
But it's a good excuse to get more LNG plants online.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 9:09 am to GumboPot
quote:
It only makes sense if LNG exports to Eastern Europe are cheaper that what Putin can sell his natural gas for. I estimate that price to be around $8 per MMbtu. I believe Japan is currently paying -$8/MMbtu for U.S. LNG. Or, Eastern Europe may be willing to pay a premium for western supplies of NG just to hurt Russia. Russia is probably selling to Eastern Europe at current prices: -$4.7/MMbtu. $3.3/MMbtu is a heafty premium. I seriously doubt they are willing to pay that premium.
Forgive my ignorance, but it seems as though a new government would be willing to pay it, particularly with the loan guarantees that are being promised at the moment. If Western suppliers charge more than what Gazprom has been charging since November (about $270 per 1,000 cubic meters from what I've read), how long does it remain feasible (both politically and financially), in your opinion? Also, what role has Statoil in Norway played in this up to this point, and what more can be expected of them?
This post was edited on 3/5/14 at 9:11 am
Posted on 3/5/14 at 9:22 am to GumboPot
quote:
But it's a good excuse to get more LNG plants online.
And just wait until the first mega-tanker blows up or is blown up and takes a major population center with it. Use the natural gas if it's available; LNG is a disaster waiting to happen.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 9:29 am to TigerPride10
quote:
If Western suppliers charge more than what Gazprom has been charging since November (about $270 per 1,000 cubic meters from what I've read), how long does it remain feasible (both politically and financially), in your opinion?
$270/Mcm =~$9.7 MMbtu. At that price point LNG imports from the US seems quite feasible.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 9:36 am to Layabout
quote:
LNG is a disaster waiting to happen.
Please list the number of LNG accidents since the 1960s. I believe you'll find that it is a very safe energy source.
If LNG spills it boils instantly like liquid nitrogen. However don't have an ignition source around. Another property about natural gas, is that it has a specific gravity of 0.6 compared to air which means it dissipates quickly, unlike propane.
This post was edited on 3/5/14 at 9:39 am
Posted on 3/5/14 at 9:40 am to Holden Caulfield
quote:this
Obama more likely to provide funding for Solyndra's new Ukrainian plant.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 9:56 am to willthezombie
Permits aren't the hold up at this point....none of these facilities will be ready before 2016. So I agree with the general argument that putting US gas on the world market would provide more energy security and independence for the world, however, it will not affect on current events. Even if the permits were in place - no affect.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 10:03 am to cwill
quote:
Permits aren't the hold up at this point....none of these facilities will be ready before 2016. So I agree with the general argument that putting US gas on the world market would provide more energy security and independence for the world, however, it will not affect on current events. Even if the permits were in place - no affect.
Like I said earlier this won't do any good in the near future, but if the US "floods the market" with LNG and oil then Russia's economy won't be able to withstand and Russia won't be a big of threat. The analysts and experts on CNN yesterday said that if oil drops below $90 a barrel and NG falls to similar levels (idk the exact #) then Russia gets put in a bind. Plus it is good for outr economy. The "experts" were also saying that the Keystone pipeline would be a huge move. They all agreed that this was about weakening Russia in the long term.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 10:07 am to willthezombie
Why is it assumed that Russia's energy is more expensive to get to market than ours?
Posted on 3/5/14 at 10:14 am to willthezombie
quote:
The analysts and experts on CNN yesterday said that if oil drops below $90 a barrel and NG falls to similar levels (idk the exact #) then Russia gets put in a bind.
What do you think would happen to US tight oil and shale oil if oil dropped below $90 a barrel? Rigs would start laying down and production would begin to drop quickly here, so that's a double edged sword. Gas prices would essentially be the same thing. The need for LNG is to link American production to the worldwide rates as domestic prices are much lower than in other parts of the world, namely Asia.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 10:30 am to willthezombie
quote:
Like I said earlier this won't do any good in the near future, but if the US "floods the market" with LNG and oil then Russia's economy won't be able to withstand and Russia won't be a big of threat. The analysts and experts on CNN yesterday said that if oil drops below $90 a barrel and NG falls to similar levels (idk the exact #) then Russia gets put in a bind. Plus it is good for outr economy. The "experts" were also saying that the Keystone pipeline would be a huge move. They all agreed that this was about weakening Russia in the long term.
The issues seem to be way over the heads of the analysts...I see that Tigerdog has addressed some of the main issues.
Oil below $90 isn't terrible but it's on its way to laying down rigs in some resource plays...especially the permian.
The entire reason for LNG export is higher pricing for domestic gas...and as gumbo pointed out Russian gas is probably cheaper than gas imported halfway across the world viat LNG tanker.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 10:40 am to willthezombie
quote:
If we started exporting NG than the price would fall and that would hurt russia' economy similar to what Reagan did in the 80's.
Hey, don't you know it was Harry Truman who brought down the USSR?
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News