Central Europeans want U.S. gas to cut dependence on Russia

Reuters ^ | Sat Mar 8, 2014 3:02pm EST | Jan Lopatka

[Olog-hai]

Four central European countries have asked the U.S. Congress to make it easier for them to import natural gas from the United States and reduce their dependence on supplies from Russia, the Czech Foreign Ministry said on Saturday.

The Visegrad 4 group including Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia is looking to diversify supplies to eliminate the danger Russia could use its control of gas and oil flows to exert political pressure on the former Soviet satellite states.

Supplies were briefly disrupted in 2009 during a dispute between Russia and Ukraine, through which much of the Russian gas is piped, and central Europeans fear they could be under threat again due to an escalation of tensions between Russia and the West over Russia’s seizure of Crimea. …

[cripplecreek]

Pipelines can be built with astonishing speed if there is political will to do so.

Prior to WWII we had little in the way of pipelines in this country but by the time was over we had them refueling ships on the east coast rather than all having to go to Galveston Texas or where ever.

[Grzegorz 246]

“What would happen if a 777 loaded with explosives collided with one of those while it was in port?”

I guess everything in the range of 1-3 miles (at least) would be totally destroyed. But I don’t think it should be used against LNG carriers. There are many other “sensitive” facilities, oil & gas storage, nuclear power plants, ammo depots etc.

[McGruff]

Hey get from the Ukraine. While you can.

[McGruff]

[Attention Surplus Disorder]

Nat gas is quite the peculiar animal when it comes to transport. People think “hey, it’s kinda the same as propane”. Oh no, it’s massively different. As a delivered product at its normal pressure, it’s roughly similar to propane, certainly less energy-dense, but a great fuel nonetheless. IF you can get it by pipe.

Propane easily liquefies at about 120 lbs pressure, turns into a liquid, and that’s that. Nice, easy. The only inconvenient thing about propane is that it’s heavier than air, so in a boat, for example, it *can*, over long periods, accumulate in low spots in the bilge and develop an explosive fuel-air mixture. Pretty easily remedied by venting with or without an exhaust fan.

Natural gas, primarily methane, does not liquefy until you pressurize it to over 3000 lbs, and there’s a requirement to chill parts of the associated plumbing to cryogenic temperatures, also to let some part of your NG boil off. It’s a complete PITA and very non trivial engineering challenge. Lacking the ability to liquefy it makes it almost uneconomical to transport in any way other than via pipeline, as a vapor...if it was a liquid, then your pipeline would have to be 3000++ lbs rated, which “none” are and probably shouldn’t be when you think about earthquakes and things like that that can cause earth movement. If there’s no pipeline, your NG is “stranded”. You can’t really get it to market, nowadays you can’t flare it (and that’s a big sorry waste whether or not you’re an eco-person) and so many drillers are actually pumping it back into the ground because it’s a by-product of almost any kind of petroleum drilling.

[Cyber Liberty]

However Obama is holding things up on our end by refusing to release funds for preparing our side of the river.

That is an outrage. That project is stuck because of a GD Customs Plaza. All the land is cleared to build but for that. IIRC, the owner of the Ambassador bridge is the person greasing the palms to stop the bridge, right?

[cripplecreek]

the owner of the Ambassador bridge is the person greasing the palms to stop the bridge, right?

Matty Maroun. He ranks about 400 on the Forbes list and he's Detroit's wealthiest slumlord and democrat donor.

[DoodleDawg]

It can. One large LNG carrier can transport +100 million cubic meters of natural gas.

The EU alone imports over 420 billion cubic meters of natural gas each year. It would take 4200 trips to service them alone.

[RayChuang88]

How about building pipelines from Norway so Norwegian natural gas can be easily shipped to western Europe?

[Grzegorz 246]

Yes but nearly 2/3 of that comes from Norway, Qatar, North Africa etc. So Russian share is around 150 billion, so 1500 trips annually to replace that totally, I think ~100 large ships should be enough to deliver that, doesn’t seem to be totally unrealistic. Besides it’s not about replacing the whole volume of Russian gas, an opportunity to import it (now there are export restrictions in place) alone is changing the game significantly.

[Erik Latranyi]

What would happen if a 777 loaded with explosives collided with one of those while it was in port?

Nothing. That is because most LNG ports are built offshore, with a multi-mile pipeline running to land.

Just study Cove Point LNG in Lusby, MD. It was an LNG import terminal. To protect Baltimore, the dock is located more than a mile away.

But, that plant is now being rebuilt as an LNG export terminal, so we can start selling natural gas to other nations.

I am involved in the project.

[SAJ]

Uh, no one seems to be talking about the **EU** except you. Total annual imports of natty in Poland, Hungary, Czech, and Slovakia last year (which was VERY cold, unlike this winter which has been considerably milder) were, depending on whom you choose to believe, on the order of 3.2 BCM. That 420 billion figure you cite, regarding the **whole** of the EU, is simply fantasy -- not even close enough for goobermint work -- regarding the 4 nations under discussion.

As one FReeper colleague has noted, just 1 large carrier every quarter would provide -- on current usage figs -- more than 10% of these 4 nations' requirements for a winter. In a severe winter, perhaps only 7-8 %. And, m'FRiend, in energy it is the barrel or cubic meter AT THE MARGIN that controls both price and availability, assuming only that world supply is ample at a given time. Which, regarding natural gas, it most certainly is today.

And -- if you've thought about it, which is NOT evident from your commentary -- 4 large shipments per year would be more than enough. Gospodin Putin would have exactly no choice but to turn the pipes back on to these nations, because his nation's economy is 100% dependent on the export of crude and natty. Losing customers on a long-term basis is not a shot on his board. Bluff and bluster are, of course, but the US (and Qatar, among others) can easily call his bluff, provided only that there is the political will to do so.

Strongly suggest you consider talking with several people who are IN the energy business, and also not confuse the entirety of the idiotic EU with the far more practical (and threatened) nations of Eastern Europe.

[Rudder]

The shipping costs for LNG will be paid by Ukranians, I presume.

[bert]

Actually it is dumb.

A better decision would be to occupy Syria, overthrow Assad and then build the cross med pipeline from Saudi Arabia.

Syria is a weaker foe than Russia. Syria can’t attack

[meatloaf]

Do you have volcano insurance? Those ships aren’t new. They been in service and plying the ocean.

[SAJ]

ASD, while every particular you mention is more or less true, the absolutely unavoidable truth is that US natty is far TOO profitable not to liquefy and export. You have to be aware of this, mate, come on.

Granted, Zerobama and his Envirodildoes will do whatever they can to prevent this, but they will fail, post-Kenyan, and perhaps before. Liquefaction faciities and terminals are being built (too slowly, granted) as we speak, and you know this to be a fact (I assume). Cheniere are a bunch of clowns, but they'll have a large new facility operational prior to the 2016 election if not sooner. As may others.

You know I'm a trader, of NG among other things, but I'm not talking my book here, not a bit of it. For the rest of the year, I intend to be writing 40-60 day OOM calls on natty, and to stop when this strategy would lead to writing the Novies. I missed most of the move on LNG (and quite happy about it; trading LNG is like having your fingernails buffed by a power sander.)

[3Fingas]

This is a win-win for the US and the Eastern European states. Since, it makes so much sense, Obama will not do it. The stupid, it hurts!

[DoodleDawg]

As one FReeper colleague has noted, just 1 large carrier every quarter would provide -- on current usage figs -- more than 10% of these 4 nations' requirements for a winter. In a severe winter, perhaps only 7-8 %.

I don't see how that's possible. If the largest LNG tankers can transport the equivilent of 100 million cubic meters of natural gas, and Poland imported 11 billion cubic meters of natural gas, then one tanker will provide less than 1 percent of Poland's imports. I wasn't a math major but it would seem to me that it would take more than 4 tankers per year to make a dent in Poland's imports. The four countries you mentioned import over 35 billion cubic meters per year.

[DoodleDawg]

So Russian share is around 150 billion, so 1500 trips annually to replace that totally, I think ~100 large ships should be enough to deliver that, doesn’t seem to be totally unrealistic.

You are assuming there is sufficient excess capacity in the LNG tanker community to take on those 1500 trips per year. I highly doubt that.

[SAJ]

It appears that you are basing your 35 BCM figure on LAST year, not this past winter. Thus, you are taking an extreme data point as opposed to the far more typical current fig. Not to say that next winter will be moderate -- no prediction on my part intended or implied.

Pls do keep in mind that "imports" never have implied "Russian imports", therefore, for any such analysis to be legitimate in the real world, one must know the PROPORTION of Russian imports, which, if I am not MUCH mistaken have declined in the past two years.

While Polish infrastructure regarding LNG imports is lagging, it IS proceeding. By 2015's winter, Russia will have lost its leverage over Poland regarding gas supply. I do not know the status of trans-Polish pipelines, north to south, but it is surely greater than zero.

Also, if I may, pls let me point out that I VERY deliberately postulated a LOW figure of large LNG imports via sea. On a regularised basis, a typical exporter (and its importing nation) will contract for considerably more shipments, in the current circumstance because the importing nation is absolutely aware that it can sell any excess imports quite profitably to another nation.

Not a 2-dimensional game here, m'FRiend, never has been. Russians may been fine chessmasters, but, to continue the analogy if I may, the energy "game" has always been rather closely more related to that odd 3-dimensional fantasy chess game that was occasionally featured on the old Star Trek telly series.