Europe gas market -how it started how its going

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 12/31/2021 at 3:45 AM, NickW said:

?????

EDF are building Hinkley C (3.2GW dual reactor) 

I hope we don't commission anything Chinese. I hope the RR modular reactor proposals get off the ground. 

The Chinese are out of the deal now. 

[Eric Gagen + 713]

8 hours ago, NickW said:

The areas where they did test bores in the UK are near or under heavily populated areas. RonW thinks we should carry on frack regardless but I am not aware that the US allows fracking underneath cities and towns. 

The area that would be interesting are the Southern North Sea coal measures which are very thick and very gassy. Would be interesting to see if anyone can develop an economic method offshore method to frack these areas. 

I am the one OK with fracking under populated areas.  The 'earthquakes' registered during the flow testing of wells in the bowland basin were basically at the minimum level at which the equipment could register it.  Reinjection of produced water has proven to have considerable impact on earthquake activity (exactly how to predict and avoid it is an area of active research) but fracturing wells is insanely safe from a seismic perspective.  

[nsdp + 449]

16 hours ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

An option how? Short of aggressive fracking schemes, there are no known untapped sources of gas anywhere in the West. The

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groningen_gas_field

which started the European love affair with NG is wrapping up prematurely, due to becoming a source of quakes. Norway finds just enough gas to compensate what their older wells lose off.

Disclaimer. I am not sure if the deep water exploration in ice is accounted for. The tech for doing so is experimental. See

https://www.eni.com/en-IT/operations/norway-goliat.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goliat_field

As you can see, there was some major mishap there, which caused Eni to scram in 2015. It is a Norwegian only show now, but appears to be operational, albeit in skunk works mode. This platform is dynamically positioned and currently reinfects all the gas to get more oil.

Officially, the only platform operating in pack ice is the Russian

https://www.gazprom.com/projects/prirazlomnoye/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prirazlomnoye_field

That one is stationary and on shallow ground. Otherwise are the two about the same, producing about 100,000 barrels of oil annually from up to 32 sub-wells or whatever those things are called.

Interestingly enough, it was Prirazlomnaya that was hit by Greenpeace, not the dodgier Goliat

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpeace_Arctic_Sunrise_ship_case

Dropping the blah blah about the evils of authoritarian Russian regime, potentially a ground breaking case in maritime law, deciding that oil rigs DO NOT constitute a vessel at sea and thus unauthorized boarding of them does not constitute piracy. Expect Russians to learn how to weaponize environmental activists against their competitors too, soon enough. The Europeans are gonna wish they didn't do this to Russia.

In another episode, I already described how Russia now has a domestically produced alternative for LM2500 genset that is actually more powerful, all thanks to sanctions on Prirazlomnaya.  Here is the start of this story

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/12/11/us-tech-bound-for-russia-seized-by-authorities-a68557

(with Vector 40G being also an upgraded version of LM2500 specifically targeting oil and gas exploration. Those things are about a 20ft container sized and power US Arley Burke destroyers, among other things. Anybody at USN interested in propulsion upgrades, perhaps?)

Anyhow, back to Norway. The situation there is extremely easy to oversea. The NG extracted on the region is very rich in

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethylene

significantly flammable and explosive gas at room temperature. So, the Norwegians have to separate the ethane before they pipe the methane, which also allows them to fetch the premium price for the ethylene fraction. See

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyhamna_Gas_Plant

In practical terms, the size of these gas works are limited to the

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vågsøy_(island)

or a smaller island in front of it which you can see in the article on the gas plant which could be

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldøen

or not. Colloquially, all those place are usually called

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Måløy

which is now apparently just the town that is located there. (where the dangerous gas processing is actually certainly NOT) It is supposed to be a word in a rare "Southern Saami" dialect, which I think is just Russian, meaning "little one"

The ability to cart away liquefied ethylene is limited to the ability of this company

https://www.j-l.com/epic-gas-and-lauritzen-kosan-combine-fleet-and-businesses

which appears to be a global monopoly now. The "product tankers" used are smaller than regular LNG carrier, are painted in bright orange, yellow or read and carry every conceivable hazardous cargo warning. Must be a good business though, as most ethylene for producing polyethylene apparently still comes from hydrocracking liquid petrochemicals, so the stuff is more expensive than gasoline.

Of specific interest are the up to 34 "product tankers" that were operated from Denmark by J. Lauritzen. You can easily track them via AIS using the following mnemonic. They are always named after either manifestations of 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_twins

or female leadership characters in the history of

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Kingdom_of_Cilicia

both of which are dead giveaways to the

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navy_of_the_Order_of_Saint_John

connection. (In case you ever wondered about the similarity of their flag to the Danish one)

The only country which has a technology to float a whole oil qualification / gas production (ought to be something like "sorting" IMHO) is Russia. In fact, does the Novatek's upcoming Arctic LNG train go offshore.

https://www.arctictoday.com/a-giant-module-for-novateks-arctic-lng-2-project-sails-the-northern-sea-route/

For which purposes there is this (sorta) shipbuilding plant being built

https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/arctic-lng/2021/05/worlds-largest-lng-construction-yard-taking-shape-belokamenka

The plan is to build prefab blocks much larger than your typical oil rig there and put LNG liqualification and works on there. I could've sworn the plant was owned by Rosneft instead of Novatek?

https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/arctic-lng/2021/05/worlds-largest-lng-construction-yard-taking-shape-belokamenka

Just found another interesting document linked from there

https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/arctic-lng/2021/03/push-global-lead-lng-moscow-takes-aim-arctic-tundra

which is PM Mishustin's strategic LNG development plan. Another nifty detail is that Novatek's floating plants will have a reserved ability to produce ammonia instead of LNG. Neat. With a boiling point around −33°C, the stuff wouldn't even have to be pressurized in the high Arctic. Could use any odd tanker for carrying it.

As usual, who exactly is sanctioning whom? Absolutely nobody is going to have a better deal on gas for Europe (and most premium portion of Asia, like Japan and Korea than Russians. Don't like Gazprom's pipeline gas? Pay some more and get some Novatek LNG. Because

a) Russia is simply closer

b) Cryogenic liquids are inherently cheaper to make in the Artic. They can get away with using two, instead of a three-stage train. (already discussed elsewhere)

c) Now, there is also a yet-unknown benefit of having mobile qualification trains / production plants following the gas. Not sure I explained well enough what's good about it, as analogies escapes me. Putting an oil refinery onto an oil rig does not seem to be that good of an idea?

Or, they can repeat this stupid stunt

From ( https://www.ft.com/content/4885b7f5-97a2-4e66-af91-a9211956b0f5 )

Just in case somebody would be inclined to interpret spot pricing as a great achievement of free market economies, even when the price for gas is somehow spot (it is not really and not ever obviously will be for LNG), the price for tankers is very much not really spot. They are also available at significant discount if there is a long term contract for their recurring use. Most are actually being built with a specific contract in mind.

Does anybody remember where I can get that article which lists the tankers actual destinations? I think something like one is heading to Poland, which made the most noise (as usual) and it could be just another publicity stunt. Most are going towards the most obvious places - Atlantic coast of Spain or Portugal. Building LNG terminals anywhere further East is simply a present to Russia's Novatek.

The current divide is supposedly going through the Belgian gas net. As evidenced by the existence of this

https://www.fluxys.com/en/company/zeebrugge-lng

That is, anything further East of this point is getting Russian gas, even if it is LNG. Further West, it may make sense to pipe American or Qatari gas from the Spanish/Portuguese locations on the Atlantic coast or the Med. Unless you want a Polish-style publicity stunt, you are getting a swap from LNG traders otherwise. Having said that, this scheme is possibly a temporary one, (ab)using the specific quirk of Qatari Q-Max carriers. All but one of those have a small built-in re-liquefaction plant. This makes them much more useful as storage facilities for LNG than tankers. (The current paradigm is to use a bit of evaporating LNG for near free and environmentally benign propulsion fuel)

This leaves out the Med. Why is so little going on there? I am aware of this

https://ec.europa.eu/inea/en/news-events/newsroom/first-croatian-lng-terminal-officially-inaugurated-krk-island

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/da/ip_19_4910

(I think some kind of LNG terminal, not in much use, has always been there?)

So, get this. Croatia gets financed for major LNG build up, so they may supply Poland. Poland gets financed for major LNG buildup so they can supply Croatia. Problem - neither of them got any LNG. Lets interconnect anyway

https://www.ceep.be/north-south-gas-corridor-poland-croatia-join-efforts/

I dunno why are there so little LNG activities on the coast of the Med yet, but I have a hunch that the final beneficiary of whatever new interconnecting pipelines the EU bankrolls is going to be Gazprom (see the TAP/TANAP debacle)

The battle royale between Poland and misc. mighty Latverias as to which one is going to be the regional hub supplying others with gas has already been decided, but none other than USSR, with surprising winner being Latvia, due to having a natural geological formation called Inčukalns which can store some 4.5 bcm of gas without evaporation loss, with expansion possible

https://www.conexus.lv/information-about-storage

https://www.skultelng.lv/en/underground_gas_storage/

This winner is surprising because Latvia, being the poorest of all misc. Latverias, actually received the least amount of EU dough for LNG buildup. The way EU infrastructure pork barrel works is that the recipient is usually not the one who's needs the subsidy most, but who's got the most matching funds. (In experiments where they tried to change the basis to the most emotional proposal, Britain always won

So, here you are witnessing a rare instance of EU legislating against the laws of geology (not to be confused with geography, the more traditional source of natural laws to legislate against)US domestic

Andre, you are going to have to learn that 1/2-3/4ths of wikipedia is BS. Here is the Enviromental Impact statement for construction of the Alaska natural gas transportation system United States. Bureau of Land Management, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons. https://pgjonline.com/magazine/2013/august-2013-vol-240-no-8/features/after-40-years-north-slope-again-a-tale-of-two-projectsThe plan was to transport the natural gas co produced with the Prudhoe Bay oil field to markets  in the lower 48.  By 1981 lower 48 production was  was enough that there was no longer any possible market for the gas and the delivered cost even to Edmonton in Canada was too high. Total proven reserves are  45 trillion cubic feet of 1250 btu/mcf gas which equals 57 trillion cubic feet of dry gas or 60 trillion GJ.  that does not include  reserves tot Naval Oil reserve to the west, Seal Island to the north or  east of Prudhoe Bay to the Yukon River in Canada.   This Geologic province is expected to produce 100 trillion GJ if it becomes economic.  This qualifies(think Ghwar in Saudi Arabia. ) as what geologists call an Elephant.

[mlisacpa + 2]

Putin thought Germany would not back Biden, but think again. Gazprom is $10 billion Euro in debt and needs to sell the gas pronto. US arms would have decimated Russian Tanks and so the pincer movement by Russia with China cleared to attack Taiwan has stalled with no Plan B. Biden is no Chump. He stopped Russian forces in 2015, they did not think he could do it again. No one loves Trump Putin or Xi.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

17 minutes ago, mlisacpa said:

Putin thought Germany would not back Biden, but think again. Gazprom is $10 billion Euro in debt and needs to sell the gas pronto. US arms would have decimated Russian Tanks and so the pincer movement by Russia with China cleared to attack Taiwan has stalled with no Plan B. Biden is no Chump. He stopped Russian forces in 2015, they did not think he could do it again. No one loves Trump Putin or Xi.

Trump is my first choice at this point in time. There will be primaries in 2024. He may not choose to run however. Of course he says he will, but anyone my age or his is well acquainted with their potential problems. Governor Ron DeSantis and Ted Cruz are two of many other good Republican candidates in the wings. 

The Demoncrats have Governor Gavin Newsom and I don't know of any other good options right now. Newsom would have to pretend to be a moderate to have a chance of winning. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

2 hours ago, nsdp said:

Andre, you are going to have to learn that 1/2-3/4ths of wikipedia is BS. Here is the Enviromental Impact statement for construction of the Alaska natural gas transportation system United States. Bureau of Land Management, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons. https://pgjonline.com/magazine/2013/august-2013-vol-240-no-8/features/after-40-years-north-slope-again-a-tale-of-two-projectsThe plan was to transport the natural gas co produced with the Prudhoe Bay oil field to markets  in the lower 48.  By 1981 lower 48 production was  was enough that there was no longer any possible market for the gas and the delivered cost even to Edmonton in Canada was too high. Total proven reserves are  45 trillion cubic feet of 1250 btu/mcf gas which equals 57 trillion cubic feet of dry gas or 60 trillion GJ.  that does not include  reserves tot Naval Oil reserve to the west, Seal Island to the north or  east of Prudhoe Bay to the Yukon River in Canada.   This Geologic province is expected to produce 100 trillion GJ if it becomes economic.  This qualifies(think Ghwar in Saudi Arabia. ) as what geologists call an Elephant.

The Arctic National Preserve is hardly visited by anyone so should logically be used for natural gas even if we need ice breakers to ship LNG with. Trump opened it up again and Biden quickly closed it. 

https://www.nps.gov/gaar/planyourvisit/index.htm

Edited January 2, 2022 by ronwagn
reference

[NickW + 2,714]

11 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

I am the one OK with fracking under populated areas.  The 'earthquakes' registered during the flow testing of wells in the bowland basin were basically at the minimum level at which the equipment could register it.  Reinjection of produced water has proven to have considerable impact on earthquake activity (exactly how to predict and avoid it is an area of active research) but fracturing wells is insanely safe from a seismic perspective.  

Bear in mind that the UK is a very stable land platform so houses were never built with earth tremours in mind. The houses are also largely of brick construction due to our climate so may not have the flex characteristics of wooden framed & sheathed houses. 

The other issue is the impact on water tables / water resources. 

On the flip side the Bowland basin is very close to the UK's heavily populated midland & central belt so any gas produced can be processed and sent to market. That gives it one advantage which may offset some of the other challenges. 

[Eric Gagen + 713]

33 minutes ago, NickW said:

Bear in mind that the UK is a very stable land platform so houses were never built with earth tremours in mind. The houses are also largely of brick construction due to our climate so may not have the flex characteristics of wooden framed & sheathed houses. 

The other issue is the impact on water tables / water resources. 

On the flip side the Bowland basin is very close to the UK's heavily populated midland & central belt so any gas produced can be processed and sent to market. That gives it one advantage which may offset some of the other challenges. 

Even brick buildings can withstand the 'tremors' that were recorded during the Bowland tests.  These aren't the sort of thing you can feel, and there aren't any registerable movements of the earth.  In many cases large trucks passing by create larger 'tremors'.

Groundwater contamination is a consideration, but the methods to prevent it are identical for all wells - fractured or not, and equally effective.  

[Tomasz + 1,608]

 Gazprom " in 2021 has extracted 514.8 billion cubic meters of gas, which was the best result in 13 years, the head of the company Alexey Miller.
"In 2021, we produced 514.8 billion cubic meters of gas. This is the best result in the last 13 years. And this is an plus of 62.2 billion cubic meters against the 2020 figure. Gazprom's production growth covered the lion's share of the growth in global gas consumption in 2021." , - Miller's words are quoted in the company's Telegram channel.

Gazprom's gas supplies to the Russian domestic market in 2021 also renewed the 2013 maximum, reaching 257.8 billion cubic meters. Growth compared to 2020 - by 31.9 billion cubic meters.

“As always, we have ensured a reliable gas supply to consumers,” Miller summed up the results of last year.

Gazprom's gas exports to non-CIS countries in 2021 increased by 5.8 billion to 185.1 billion cubic meters, which was the fourth result in the history of the company, the head of the company added. "I would like to note that 15 countries have increased the purchase of Russian pipeline gas," he said.
The largest increase in the indicator was provided by the largest consumers of Russian pipeline gas - Germany (+ 10.5%), Turkey (+ 63%), Italy (+ 20.3%).

"Gas exports through the Power of Siberia gas pipeline to China are growing. Throughout 2021, we regularly supplied gas to China in excess of contractual obligations. From January 1, 2022, Gazprom reached a new level of supplies, as provided for by a long-term bilateral purchase agreement - gas sales, "Miller also noted.

The head of Gazprom stressed that the modern offshore gas pipelines Nord Stream and Turkish Stream play a significant role in ensuring reliable supplies of Russian gas to Europe.

“Therefore, it is especially important that since December 29 of last year, another offshore gas pipeline, Nord Stream 2, with a design capacity of 55 billion cubic meters of gas per year, is fully ready for operation,” Miller recalled.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

On 1/1/2022 at 7:41 AM, NickW said:

 RonW thinks we should carry on frack regardless but I am not aware that the US allows fracking underneath cities and towns.

Dallas Fort Worth: Population ~7.5 Million and rest of TX

All of Pennsylvania and its many cities.  etc

[NickW + 2,714]

2 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Dallas Fort Worth: Population ~7.5 Million and rest of TX

All of Pennsylvania and its many cities.  etc

Was that a case of the oil industry built up first in the location and then urban sprawl expanded over it? 

[Eric Gagen + 713]

58 minutes ago, NickW said:

Was that a case of the oil industry built up first in the location and then urban sprawl expanded over it? 

Both have happened, too many times to count.  Often it is some of both.  An oilfield is discovered and a town sprouts up not for away.  As time goes on the town prospers and expands, on to/ in to land occupied by the original oilfield.  Then 50 years later some new oil field is discovered underneath a different part of the town.  Multiply by any combination of time and space and there are a thousand different specific scenarios.

 

another way this happens is when the surface and subsurface land each have high value - for example oil fields under ports in Los Angeles California and Poole England. You can’t move either feature they are a fact of geology not choice. 
 

It’s not just oil fields.  Detroit Michigan is built on top of a massive salt mine still in production. Paris is on top of a limestone quarry (no longer in use I think) there are probably other less famous examples also.

Edited January 2, 2022 by Eric Gagen

[Tomasz + 1,608]

To tell you the truth, the collective West wanted natural gas prices to be determined by the spot.  As a result, it has a spot price market regulated by LNG

. Well, then Russia is also diversifying its sales markets through LNG supplies to Asia and by the construction of Power of Siberia I, Power of Siberia II, now also LNG test sales to India.

And the European Union has what it wanted, i.e. prices set by the global spot market. It means, unfortunately, for Europe JKM (JAPAN KOREA MARKET) - there always since  since I remember it was more expensive contract than Gazprom sent to Europe under long-term contracts in recent memory.

 “The EU got exactly what it wanted. The NG price in Europe is determined by energy hungry Chinese, Japanese and Koreans.

[Boat + 1,323]

On 1/2/2022 at 6:22 AM, Eric Gagen said:

Even brick buildings can withstand the 'tremors' that were recorded during the Bowland tests.  These aren't the sort of thing you can feel, and there aren't any registerable movements of the earth.  In many cases large trucks passing by create larger 'tremors'.

Groundwater contamination is a consideration, but the methods to prevent it are identical for all wells - fractured or not, and equally effective.  

There is a reason baseline water testing is not required in Texas. If there is a problem that develops with the water it makes it more difficult to prove where the problem came from. Welcome to 3 rd world regulations. 

[Boat + 1,323]

42 minutes ago, Tomasz said:

To tell you the truth, the collective West wanted natural gas prices to be determined by the spot.  As a result, it has a spot price market regulated by LNG

. Well, then Russia is also diversifying its sales markets through LNG supplies to Asia and by the construction of Power of Siberia I, Power of Siberia II, now also LNG test sales to India.

And the European Union has what it wanted, i.e. prices set by the global spot market. It means, unfortunately, for Europe JKM (JAPAN KOREA MARKET) - there always since  since I remember it was more expensive contract than Gazprom sent to Europe under long-term contracts in recent memory.

 “The EU got exactly what it wanted. The NG price in Europe is determined by energy hungry Chinese, Japanese and Koreans.

I have a conspiracy theory for you. The US and Europe want to drive opinion against Putin and it’s working. All those troops abusing poor little Ukraine for no reason. Putin wants to run gas sales through Germany instead of the Ukraine. Putin is willing to stop selling spot gas and hurt poor people across Europe. If Europeans freeze, die during winter yes storms, yea, Putins fault. 
Result? Go green and make Putin and his FF fuels irrelevant. 

[Boat + 1,323]

On 1/2/2022 at 3:03 PM, Eric Gagen said:

Both have happened, too many times to count.  Often it is some of both.  An oilfield is discovered and a town sprouts up not for away.  As time goes on the town prospers and expands, on to/ in to land occupied by the original oilfield.  Then 50 years later some new oil field is discovered underneath a different part of the town.  Multiply by any combination of time and space and there are a thousand different specific scenarios.

 

another way this happens is when the surface and subsurface land each have high value - for example oil fields under ports in Los Angeles California and Poole England. You can’t move either feature they are a fact of geology not choice. 
 

It’s not just oil fields.  Detroit Michigan is built on top of a massive salt mine still in production. Paris is on top of a limestone quarry (no longer in use I think) there are probably other less famous examples also.

Mining is another early growth area. Some mines were below populations.

[Eric Gagen + 713]

45 minutes ago, Boat said:

There is a reason baseline water testing is not required in Texas. If there is a problem that develops with the water it makes it more difficult to prove where the problem came from. Welcome to 3 rd world regulations. 

That's a different issue, and one I never heard before.  I amsure it could be resolved via regulation.  Certainly the water still gets tested on a regular basis - I get the report for our water district every year.  Oil and gas production is broadly safe for groundwater.  Certainly safer than a lot of other activities which are also common. 

In the case of Texas specifically though (and much of the rest of the US) I am not sure how useful a 'baseline' would be.  Oil and gas production, or deep coal or metals mining were around a long long time before modern water testing, so it would be tough to get 'good' samples for general areas. You would have to look at everything on a case by case basis for it to be really useful.  

The really big problem with looking for contaminants in groundwater is that it varies a lot from place to place - like it's common to get different data 50 or 100 yards/meters away, or 10 meters different in depth.  The other is that groundwater in many cases naturally has at least SOME 'contaminants, and as instruments to detect them get better, more of them are found.  The real question is how much, and is it something that needs to be addressed.  

Edited January 3, 2022 by Eric Gagen

[Boat + 1,323]

31 minutes ago, Eric Gagen said:

That's a different issue, and one I never heard before.  I amsure it could be resolved via regulation.  Certainly the water still gets tested on a regular basis - I get the report for our water district every year.  Oil and gas production is broadly safe for groundwater.  Certainly safer than a lot of other activities which are also common. 

In the case of Texas specifically though (and much of the rest of the US) I am not sure how useful a 'baseline' would be.  Oil and gas production, or deep coal or metals mining were around a long long time before modern water testing, so it would be tough to get 'good' samples for general areas. You would have to look at everything on a case by case basis for it to be really useful.  

The really big problem with looking for contaminants in groundwater is that it varies a lot from place to place - like it's common to get different data 50 or 100 yards/meters away, or 10 meters different in depth.  The other is that groundwater in many cases naturally has at least SOME 'contaminants, and as instruments to detect them get better, more of them are found.  The real question is how much, and is it something that needs to be addressed.  

More Drinking Water Contamination Linked to the Oil and Gas Industry in Texas and Pennsylvania

February 05, 2016 Amy Mall 

Two recent drinking water investigations in Texas show dangerous levels of contamination.

The larger study tested 550 water samples collected from public and private water wells in the north Texas Barnett Shale region over a three-year period and found that the closer a water well is to a fracked gas well, the higher the concentration of contaminants including arsenic, selenium, strontium, and barium. This investigation also found "alarming" levels of benzene, a known carcinogen.

A smaller study in in south Texas sampled water quality in 80 homes in the Eagle Ford shale region. Of the 80 samples, 20 (25%) showed contamination with high levels of bromide. According to the scientist who conducted the investigation: "almost exclusively those were found within one kilometer of the drilling sites." The sampling also found a few occurrences of volatile organic compounds that are dangerous to human health.
 

 

Baseline tell what you have in the water today. Further testing and you maybe get trends if there is a problem. If the water is clean and stays clean why would an industry fight regulations. I’ll tell you what I suspect. Dollars at potential risk vrs human health. A bit simplified but let your imagination run. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 12/30/2021 at 5:37 PM, NickW said:

Money well spent

Strike prices for offshore wind down to 67 Euros / Mwh

Gas price today on Dutch hub 95 Euro / Mwh

Then why are Europeans paying two to three times as much for electricity than Americans?!

[ronwagn + 6,290]

6 hours ago, Boat said:

I have a conspiracy theory for you. The US and Europe want to drive opinion against Putin and it’s working. All those troops abusing poor little Ukraine for no reason. Putin wants to run gas sales through Germany instead of the Ukraine. Putin is willing to stop selling spot gas and hurt poor people across Europe. If Europeans freeze, die during winter yes storms, yea, Putins fault. 
Result? Go green and make Putin and his FF fuels irrelevant. 

That is the reason that they are in the position they are in, Green Dreams rushed too fast. Reality was never really respected. Green parties prevailed with misled voters. Germany is the perfect example. Merkel was of no help, she trusted Russia to play fair. She was warned by our government what could happen. It has happened. The Greens now have enough power to control what happens. No coal, no nuclear. France has become smarter than Germany and the rest of the E.U. if they go ahead with more nuclear. They can set the price for power. 

[Boat + 1,323]

2 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Then why are Europeans paying two to three times as much for electricity than Americans?!

Show me the 10 year consumption energy chart. Show me Europes 10 year electricity by source. You use data for those types of questions. Get woke and check it out. Yes

[Boat + 1,323]

1 hour ago, ronwagn said:

That is the reason that they are in the position they are in, Green Dreams rushed too fast. Reality was never really respected. Green parties prevailed with misled voters. Germany is the perfect example. Merkel was of no help, she trusted Russia to play fair. She was warned by our government what could happen. It has happened. The Greens now have enough power to control what happens. No coal, no nuclear. France has become smarter than Germany and the rest of the E.U. if they go ahead with more nuclear. They can set the price for power. 

Merkel was the leader of killing nukes. Eh? How much coal was cut? How much demand is new by year? See how this discovery works? How much renewables took the place of what? I follow the US and only causally interested in the rest of the world. Countries often use another country as the villain and claim being the victim. 

[NickW + 2,714]

3 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Then why are Europeans paying two to three times as much for electricity than Americans?!

Don't worry Ron - as the US builds more and more LNG export terminals you too can be locked into global price parity for gas😂

[NickW + 2,714]

On 1/2/2022 at 12:12 AM, Eric Gagen said:

I am the one OK with fracking under populated areas.  The 'earthquakes' registered during the flow testing of wells in the bowland basin were basically at the minimum level at which the equipment could register it.  Reinjection of produced water has proven to have considerable impact on earthquake activity (exactly how to predict and avoid it is an area of active research) but fracturing wells is insanely safe from a seismic perspective.  

Interesting developments in the Netherlands. 

Interesting vertical and diagonal crack through a house

Extra gas extraction angers Dutch region hit by earthquakes (msn.com)

 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 1/4/2022 at 1:39 AM, Boat said:

Show me the 10 year consumption energy chart. Show me Europes 10 year electricity by source. You use data for those types of questions. Get woke and check it out. Yes

 

1 hour ago, NickW said:

Interesting developments in the Netherlands. 

Interesting vertical and diagonal crack through a house

Extra gas extraction angers Dutch region hit by earthquakes (msn.com)

 

I think the damage is small compared to the benefit. That looks like a very old building and they often have failures. The injured building and parties should get double reimbursement for their trouble if the minor quakes cause damage. We recently had a brick building lose a wall in my town with no apparent reason. Probably built about 1900. Many buildings in the Netherlands were built before America existed.