Europe gas market -how it started how its going

[Tomasz + 1,608]

1 hour ago, Starschy said:

Russia is sending more Gas to China anyway.

Power of Sibiria will work with full capacity in 2025.

And the Mongolian link will be built till around 2027.

In my opinion, Russia made a big mistake. Years ago, she should have bet not on Europe, but only on China in terms of gas sales. In my opinion, it makes absolutely no sense to build any kind of infrastructure in the West. Only China and Asia.

Recent talks show that the Americans decide about everything in the EU. It makes no sense to treat the European Union as a geopolitical entity.

Only and exclusively bet on China.

[Tomasz + 1,608]

Senator Ted Cruz’s Nord Stream 2 sanctions bill REJECTED by US Senate

The White House had stated the Biden admin “strongly opposed” Cruz’s bill seeking further mandatory sanctions against Nord Stream 2 project prior to the vote.

[Eric Gagen + 713]

2 hours ago, Tomasz said:

In my opinion, Russia made a big mistake. Years ago, she should have bet not on Europe, but only on China in terms of gas sales. In my opinion, it makes absolutely no sense to build any kind of infrastructure in the West. Only China and Asia.

Recent talks show that the Americans decide about everything in the EU. It makes no sense to treat the European Union as a geopolitical entity.

Only and exclusively bet on China.

You may be right, but it would have been a gamble to bet it all on China.  What if it hadn't worked? China developing was, I think a reasonably safe bet, but betting that they would have had a high demand for piped gas from Russia was not a sure thing.  Plus, you have to have someone to sell to while you construct the expensive infrastructure to make serious sales to China.  That someone is Europe.  

[Boat + 1,324]

I heard somewhere that 20% of nat gas in Europe comes from Russia. From the same YouTube video they claim Russia makes 1/2 trillion off its nat gas exports. It seems weird to risk steady easy money. Why is Putin turning into Kim Jong Un. 

[Eric Gagen + 713]

51 minutes ago, Boat said:

I heard somewhere that 20% of nat gas in Europe comes from Russia. From the same YouTube video they claim Russia makes 1/2 trillion off its nat gas exports. It seems weird to risk steady easy money. Why is Putin turning into Kim Jong Un. 

I think it’s more like 40-50%. And why bother making a steady 1/2 trillion a year when it could be a solid trillion?  Russia has very little if anything to loose. Europe has no good options. Russia on the other hand had plenty of good options - sell to China, use internally, sell LNG or go the petrochemicals route.  All of Russia’s options are good for the state good for the balance of payments and good for the average citizen.  Some are better than others but none of them are bad. 

[Boat + 1,324]

The consumer is always right. It’s how you build a successful business. If you go to collage they don’t teach you to piss off your customers and threaten them. They will chase alternatives. The reason the USSR failed was lack of management skills, not military power. The US is struggling from lack of management skills, not military power. You could say the same about China. So how do such few management skilled people make it to the top. And why is it so popular to be violent and hateful. I vote for woke over ignorance. The golden rule is golden for a reason. Marry a smart independent woman and have one child. Both of you read to that child. For fun listen to this girl.

https://youtu.be/4XOMskgN8w4

 

[NickW + 2,714]

14 hours ago, Tomasz said:

In my opinion, Russia made a big mistake. Years ago, she should have bet not on Europe, but only on China in terms of gas sales. In my opinion, it makes absolutely no sense to build any kind of infrastructure in the West. Only China and Asia.

Recent talks show that the Americans decide about everything in the EU. It makes no sense to treat the European Union as a geopolitical entity.

Only and exclusively bet on China.

Which places Putins balls firmly in the grip of Xi

If I was Putin I would want to hedge my bets and keep options in both east and west and don't become reliant on one customer. Australia learned this when it fell out with China. 

[NickW + 2,714]

12 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

I think it’s more like 40-50%. And why bother making a steady 1/2 trillion a year when it could be a solid trillion?  Russia has very little if anything to loose. Europe has no good options. Russia on the other hand had plenty of good options - sell to China, use internally, sell LNG or go the petrochemicals route.  All of Russia’s options are good for the state good for the balance of payments and good for the average citizen.  Some are better than others but none of them are bad. 

 

Options it does have are:

Build wind turbines treble fast as the infrastructure and supply chain is there. Per kwh wind is now much cheaper than gas anway!

Except a limited amount of new coal build and acceptance this will be in the fuel mix for the forseeable . Europe can get plenty of coal from the USA & Canada (and other sources) so a nice diversifcation away from Russia

Get some conventional gas field developments underway (Cambo, Jackdaw) 

Try and ressurrect a decent nuclear program

Pump prime new resources like Tidal - the UK, Ireland, France  and Norway have superb resources. 

Biogas is coming on leaps and bounds - the UK potential is about 150 Twh a year which would equate to 1/6th of UK consumption

Double down on end use efficiency

Edited January 14, 2022 by NickW

[Eric Gagen + 713]

4 hours ago, NickW said:

 

Options it does have are:

Build wind turbines treble fast as the infrastructure and supply chain is there. Per kwh wind is now much cheaper than gas anway!

Except a limited amount of new coal build and acceptance this will be in the fuel mix for the forseeable . Europe can get plenty of coal from the USA & Canada (and other sources) so a nice diversifcation away from Russia

Get some conventional gas field developments underway (Cambo, Jackdaw) 

Try and ressurrect a decent nuclear program

Pump prime new resources like Tidal - the UK, Ireland, France  and Norway have superb resources. 

Biogas is coming on leaps and bounds - the UK potential is about 150 Twh a year which would equate to 1/6th of UK consumption

Double down on end use efficiency

These are all future solutions that will at best assist in 5 years (major wind expansion) 10 years (more coal plants or 15+ years (nuclear) 

the problem with gas and biogas is that it is necessary just to replace existing declining gas fields.  It doesn’t assist in fixing the energy problem - at best it prevents it from getting worse.

Europe can import coal from North America, but the cost of shipping is considerable - Russia can (and routinely has) undercut the price of coal shipped from Noeth America while still getting a premium price because their transit costs are much lower.  This is why Europe imports so much coal already from Russia and so little from other places.  

[NickW + 2,714]

13 minutes ago, Eric Gagen said:

These are all future solutions that will at best assist in 5 years (major wind expansion) 10 years (more coal plants or 15+ years (nuclear) 

the problem with gas and biogas is that it is necessary just to replace existing declining gas fields.  It doesn’t assist in fixing the energy problem - at best it prevents it from getting worse.

Europe can import coal from North America, but the cost of shipping is considerable - Russia can (and routinely has) undercut the price of coal shipped from Noeth America while still getting a premium price because their transit costs are much lower.  This is why Europe imports so much coal already from Russia and so little from other places.  

The offshore wind infrastructure is up and running in Europe - remember we are 2 decades ahead of the USA in this area so it is  easier to expand from an existing infrastructure base. The next frontier is floating turbines. The sea space for this is enormous - UK, Ireland, Norway, France, Spain, Portugal. 

Personally Id rather pay a premium for US & Canadian coal simply because it diversifies supply away from one supplier. Much like the sentiment to getting a proportion of gas via LNG rather than pipelines. 

A civil engineer I know said if you have the site and planning permission in place they could have a 2GW coal plant up and operating inside 5 years. 

 

 

[Eric Gagen + 713]

3 hours ago, NickW said:

The offshore wind infrastructure is up and running in Europe - remember we are 2 decades ahead of the USA in this area so it is  easier to expand from an existing infrastructure base. The next frontier is floating turbines. The sea space for this is enormous - UK, Ireland, Norway, France, Spain, Portugal. 

Personally Id rather pay a premium for US & Canadian coal simply because it diversifies supply away from one supplier. Much like the sentiment to getting a proportion of gas via LNG rather than pipelines. 

A civil engineer I know said if you have the site and planning permission in place they could have a 2GW coal plant up and operating inside 5 years. 

 

 

Those are big IF’s.  
 

that said yes there is a LOT of room to grow on wind, and it’s growing fast.  Problem from the perspective of replacing natural gas with wind is that a lot of that new wind capacity is going to replace nuclear and coal plants that are getting retired.  
 

Europe is way ahead of the US in developing offshore wind, but in total capacity installed the difference isn’t that big.  It’s just that in the US there are vast areas with excellent wind resources and virtually no people on land.  The economics of setting up wind in these locations is too good to pass up - they can generate wind electric power at about 1/2 the cost of the typical European offshore installation.  Offshore wind in the US only makes sense  right now in the few places which are heavily populated near the coast without a large volume of good wind production sites near them inland.  This narrows it down to the northeast at present.  In theory, Florida and California would be good candidates for offshore wind too, but solar beats the snot out of wind in their climates.  

Edited January 14, 2022 by Eric Gagen

[notsonice + 1,255]

16 hours ago, Boat said:

The consumer is always right. It’s how you build a successful business. If you go to collage they don’t teach you to piss off your customers and threaten them. They will chase alternatives. The reason the USSR failed was lack of management skills, not military power. The US is struggling from lack of management skills, not military power. You could say the same about China. So how do such few management skilled people make it to the top. And why is it so popular to be violent and hateful. I vote for woke over ignorance. The golden rule is golden for a reason. Marry a smart independent woman and have one child. Both of you read to that child. For fun listen to this girl.

https://youtu.be/4XOMskgN8w4

 

If you go to collage they don’t teach you.........collage???? stay in school Junior....... it is College

Edited January 14, 2022 by notsonice

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, Eric Gagen said:

Those are big IF’s.  
 

that said yes there is a LOT of room to grow on wind, and it’s growing fast.  Problem from the perspective of replacing natural gas with wind is that a lot of that new wind capacity is going to replace nuclear and coal plants that are getting retired.  
 

Europe is way ahead of the US in developing offshore wind, but in total capacity installed the difference isn’t that big.  It’s just that in the US there are vast areas with excellent wind resources and virtually no people on land.  The economics of setting up wind in these locations is too good to pass up - they can generate wind electric power at about 1/2 the cost of the typical European offshore installation.  Offshore wind in the US only makes sense  right now in the few places which are heavily populated near the coast without a large volume of good wind production sites near them inland.  This narrows it down to the northeast at present.  In theory, Florida and California would be good candidates for offshore wind too, but solar beats the snot out of wind in their climates.  

I know.  Many European politicians including UK ones ought to be dangling from a rope in regard to what they have done to European energy security. 

I shall press on with my own personal preparations. More insulation, triple glazing, more solar. At least that helps minimise the amount of my money lines Putins pockets. 

Would like a wood burning stove but have to convince my wife. 

Contingency planning includes deep cycle batteries, solar controller and inverter, spirit stoves and an outdoor wood rocket stove. 

Oh and jumpers, blankets, hot water bottles, sleeping bags!

[Tomasz + 1,608]

The average price of Russian gas exports in all directions (to near and far abroad) in November 2021 rose to $503 per thousand cubic meters from $445 in October, follows from the data of the Federal Customs Service.

According to the results of 11 months of last year, the average export price for the year reached $252 per thousand cubic meters.

The operational data of the FCS is somewhat different from the data of Gazprom, since the company exports not only Russian, but also Central Asian gas . 

In addition, the most significant indicator for the concern is not the total export price, but the price of deliveries to far abroad countries.

Nevertheless, "Gazprom" has begun to use (so far in the information on the budget process) the indicator of the average price of exports, which more accurately echoes the data of customs statistics. 

The group's budget for 2021 includes an average gas export price of $250, while the company expects the actual figure to exceed $280. The 2022 budget includes an average export price of $296 per thousand cubic meters.

According to the FCS, in November 2021, export revenue amounted to $7.1998 billion.

In subsequent months, these data may be updated. However, the published figure is the only price indicator in Russian gas export statistics.

 Customs publish deliveries by country without price information.

The volume of exports, according to the operational sample, in November 2021 amounted to 14.3 billion cubic meters. m.Customs statistics include only Russian gas and do not include Central Asian gas re-exported by Gazprom.

http://www.finmarket.ru/news/5627575

Edited January 14, 2022 by Tomasz

[Tomasz + 1,608]

Gas stocks in European storage facilities fell below 50%

On the morning of January 12, the total level of reserves in underground gas storage facilities (UGS) in Europe fell to 49.33%, Interfax reports, citing data from Gas Infrastructure Europe. This is 16 percentage points below the average for the past five years.

According to the association, the level of stocks is the lowest now in the vaults of Austria (31%), the Netherlands (33%). In Ukraine, inventories fell to 26%.

Earlier today, Gazprom announced that it had provided some of the information requested by the European Commission as part of an investigation initiated due to a gas shortage. On the evening of January 13, the price of February futures for gas rose to $1,030 per 1,000 cubic meters. m, by the close of the session it rolled back to $998.7.

As of December 31, the fullness of underground storage facilities was 60.38 billion cubic meters (55.93%). This is 20.6 billion cubic meters less than in 2020. The total volume of gas withdrawal in December amounted to 15.63 billion cubic meters. This is the fourth largest indicator for the time of observations, which have been conducted since 2011

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

17 hours ago, Boat said:

The consumer is always right. It’s how you build a successful business. If you go to collage they don’t teach you to piss off your customers and threaten them. They will chase alternatives. The reason the USSR failed was lack of management skills, not military power. The US is struggling from lack of management skills, not military power. You could say the same about China. So how do such few management skilled people make it to the top. And why is it so popular to be violent and hateful. I vote for woke over ignorance. The golden rule is golden for a reason. Marry a smart independent woman and have one child. Both of you read to that child. For fun listen to this girl.

https://youtu.be/4XOMskgN8w4

 

Russia threatening customers? Putin turning into Kim? You live in the imaginary world of your zombie box. It is the Eurofags who did everything in their power to shoot themselves in the foot, kowtowing to Uncle Sam's wishes instead of their own citizens' needs. See how all of their energy charters and third packages and whatnots somehow only ever apply to Gazprom's pipelines. Not anybody else's and not LNG. Technically, this is a crystal clear violation of WTO bylaws, but all the laws and rules in the world drop by the side when the criminal syndicate known as USA wants something. Do I need to point out that "Senator" Ted Cruz has no jurisdiction to legislate outside of Podunk, Texas. Moreover, calling up German government officials down at municipal level and promising to send somebody to break their legs if they continue to service contracts related to NS2 ought to be illegal somehow, don't you think?

[Eric Gagen + 713]

1 hour ago, Wombat One said:

You dope. The Chinese need so much gas they are building not only the Power of Siberia 2, but also the pipeline from Iran's South Pars field through Pakistan. And they will also need plenty gas from USA, Australia, Qatar, and Tanzania. Heck, even Saudi Arabia is in the process of reducing flaring so they can flog the stuff to China rather than waste it? Then there is Canadian LNG as well? Why would Europe be worried about a lack of Russian Gas when Qatar is set to double it's LNG output, they can buy from USA and Australia, and are about to develop the massive reserves in the Mediteranean? Putin could not have picked a worse time to try and use gas as a lever to bash over Europe's head. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar?

Price.  LNG is inherently more expensive for the purchaser than pipeline gas.  The gap is large enough that Russia can sell their gas at a higher price than the price of the LNG, so long as it is still under the gas + transit cost of the LNG.  By 'locking in' long term contracts for Russian gas via pipeline they prevent Europe from having a reason to try to get more LNG recieving capacity.  Russia makes more money, and Europe saves money but becomes more dependent on Russia. The more gas Europe buys anywhere but Russia (or North Africa) the worse the commercial terms get for the Europeans.

Edited January 15, 2022 by Eric Gagen

[Andrew Neopalimy + 14]

58 минут назад, Вомбат Один сказал:

Отлично! Это именно мой план. Чем раньше я продвигаю планету, тем быстрее я возрождаю западное производство и общество в целом. Моя самая большая прибыльм была сила нефтедоллара.

The USA will soon be divided into three parts / states following the results of Civil War-2.
And this will be a better outcome than from a well-deserved slap in the face of Mother Russia - a miserable, shameful and well-deserved death from a "preemptive" massive nuclear-non-nuclear strike. )))

Edited January 15, 2022 by Andrew Neopalimy

[Boat + 1,324]

The OPEC+ alliance has reduced its production by 9.7 million barrels per day since May last year due to a drop in oil demand caused by thecoronavirus pandemic. As the situation stabilized, the deal was adjusted. And since August 2021, the alliance has been increasing production by 400 thousand barrels per day every month, From Tomas. 
 

Please explain to the Biden haters. It’s the foreigners fault. Lol Tomas reports they still have 3+ million barrels extra capacity. So let’s all agree the Bear is working with the pesky Middle East to raise food prices for the poor world over.

Neopalimy dreams of a preemptive strike like a Kim Jong Un. Jong has a better arsenal of insults though. 

I hope the Russian people kick out the violent and embraces the path to being woke. Use your brains to help your family and the world. Anybody can be an ignorant Kim Jong Un. History is full of these losers that mostly end in bad outcomes. Per-sue good outcomes and pass good karma. 

[NickW + 2,714]

10 hours ago, Wombat One said:

As an Australian, I can tell you that only works for a while. If you want your country to become a vassal of China with zero influence, go right ahead. Ask the Pakistani's how it is working for them? I will laugh when China pushes their claim on Vladisvostok in a more meaningful fashion.

Quite. See my earlier response to this. 

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

17 hours ago, Wombat One said:

Tell me Tomasz, is the oil from Guyana and Suriname heavy like Venezuala's? What about the Canadian stuff? Did you ever stop to think that maybe I persuaded the USA to buy some Russian oil in order to do Putin a favour and foster co-operation? Heck, I even promised him that there would be plenty demand for his gas in Europe but his paranoid Generals (who are the ones that are actually in charge of Russian foreign policy, not Putin), decided they could have their cake and eat it. They have a habit of wasting Russia's chance to become a rich and powerful country on their latest, un-necessary weapons programs. While the average Russian can't even afford an overseas holiday every 2-3 years? 

Canadian oil is bitumen

[Starschy + 211]

European offshore Windfarms are a big security risk. Those farms are unprotected and open for any Aggressor. With in 48 hours 70% of all German Windfarms would be destroyed and power production would fall to about 15% of 44.

Nuclear. or Hydro Power Stations are fare better protected as Wind or Solar Energie. Both are not reliable in War times.

Edited January 15, 2022 by Starschy

[Eric Gagen + 713]

1 hour ago, Starschy said:

European offshore Windfarms are a big security risk. Those farms are unprotected and open for any Aggressor. With in 48 hours 70% of all German Windfarms would be destroyed and power production would fall to about 15% of 44.

Nuclear. or Hydro Power Stations are fare better protected as Wind or Solar Energie. Both are not reliable in War times.

Nukes and Hydro are incredibly easy to take out in a wartime scenario too.  If anything, concentrated plants like nuclear or hydro are easier to do  permanent damage to with a few guided bombs or missiles.  Wind at least has the advantage that the actual means of producing the power is distributed.  They are all equally at risk of an attack on the connection/interconnect between the power station and the grid, but this is more easily repaired than damage to the generation equipment itself.  One good hit on a dam in the right place, and not only is the dam destroyed, but a considerable area downstream is destroyed by the water release.  Similar with a nuclear plant and the area downwind.  By contrast you have to hit each and every single wind turbine to bring a wind farm to a condition where it can't generate any power at all.  

[Boat + 1,324]

2 hours ago, Starschy said:

European offshore Windfarms are a big security risk. Those farms are unprotected and open for any Aggressor. With in 48 hours 70% of all German Windfarms would be destroyed and power production would fall to about 15% of 44.

Nuclear. or Hydro Power Stations are fare better protected as Wind or Solar Energie. Both are not reliable in War times.

Why not start with data bases and civilization quits functioning immediately. You can use the bombs and military infrastructure as the worlds largest museum with no one to see them. Are you Russians gonna keep blowing up the world forever? 
When the Russian apocalypse happens it’s all about location, location. A liquor store near Home Depot, gun shop and grocery store will be very popular.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

22 hours ago, Wombat One said:

I persuaded the USA to buy some.....

🤣🤣🤣

I suggest a mental institution for the delusional...