US continues imports of Russian gas which it insists Europe should stop buying

US continues imports of Russian gas which it insists Europe should stop buying

Quote

This is not the first batch of Yamal-originated LNG. In January, a month after the facility started operating, French tanker Gaselys delivered the first LNG cargo to the US city of Boston. The fuel was reportedly purchased by Malaysian oil and gas firm Petronas, transported to the UK, and then resold. In March, Boston reportedly welcomed another LNG carrier – Provalys owned by French multinational Engie. The tanker reportedly delivered the second LNG cargo from the Russian Yamal plant.

https://www.rt.com/business/444168-russian-lng-tankers-us-yamal/

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Readers should take note that his quotation is from an article in "RT,"  which stands for "Russia Today."

Russia Today is a propaganda sheet put out by the Kremlin, it is the successor in spirit to the old Pravda of the USSR and the Cold War.  As a propaganda sheet, nothing in RT is to be believed.  It is notorious for "fake news," long before CNN got that label.  RT energetically advances, or attempts to advance, the Party Line du jour, which in this case is an effort to undermine US efforts to isolate Russia and shut down their gas sales to the West.  It is true that offshore gas was shipped in to Boston.  The origin of the gas remains murky, and it may well have come from Russia itself, after being laundered by a trading company to disguise its true origin.  On the other hand, it may have come from somewhere else.  It is not in the interests of the trading company to reveal the source; then Buyers could go direct to Sellers and defeat the commission of the trading company.

All that said, it is also certainly true that there is insufficient pipeline capacity for gas to flow to the populated areas of Boston and surroundings, that new pipeline being  locked by hysterical activists (who would prefer to have Americans burn logs in the fireplace instead of having gas or oil heat or even electricity).  And, because of the 100-year-old Jones Act, no gas can be shipped by ship from Louisiana to Boston except in a US-built LNG vessel - of which there are none, since no US shipyard even builds such ships.  So, due to Congress and their stupidities, and exacerbated by bureaucrats in Washington, Boston gets NO gas.  Go bring it in from Europe, or wherever; your problem, Boston. Is that brilliant, or what?

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Readers should take note that his quotation is from an article in "RT,"  which stands for "Russia Today."

Russia Today is a propaganda sheet put out by the Kremlin, it is the successor in spirit to the old Pravda of the USSR and the Cold War.  As a propaganda sheet, nothing in RT is to be believed.  It is notorious for "fake news," long before CNN got that label.  RT energetically advances, or attempts to advance, the Party Line du jour, which in this case is an effort to undermine US efforts to isolate Russia and shut down their gas sales to the West.  It is true that offshore gas was shipped in to Boston.  The origin of the gas remains murky, and it may well have come from Russia itself, after being laundered by a trading company to disguise its true origin.  On the other hand, it may have come from somewhere else.  It is not in the interests of the trading company to reveal the source; then Buyers could go direct to Sellers and defeat the commission of the trading company.

All that said, it is also certainly true that there is insufficient pipeline capacity for gas to flow to the populated areas of Boston and surroundings, that new pipeline being  locked by hysterical activists (who would prefer to have Americans burn logs in the fireplace instead of having gas or oil heat or even electricity).  And, because of the 100-year-old Jones Act, no gas can be shipped by ship from Louisiana to Boston except in a US-built LNG vessel - of which there are none, since no US shipyard even builds such ships.  So, due to Congress and their stupidities, and exacerbated by bureaucrats in Washington, Boston gets NO gas.  Go bring it in from Europe, or wherever; your problem, Boston. Is that brilliant, or what?

I have not had any exposure to LNG trading or transportation. But if is anything like crude – and I suspect it is – it would be very easy for a buyer to trace the origin of a cargo if they wanted to. Now, if this story is true, Boston can hardly be faulted for making a financially logical decision. Such is the free market. And Boston would hardly be the first entity to weigh financials over principles. But, if true, it is amusing though – and really puts the current presidential administration on display… rules and principles apply to anybody but us.  

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

I have not had any exposure to LNG trading or transportation. But if is anything like crude – and I suspect it is – it would be very easy for a buyer to trace the origin of a cargo if they wanted to. Now, if this story is true, Boston can hardly be faulted for making a financially logical decision. Such is the free market. And Boston would hardly be the first entity to weigh financials over principles. But, if true, it is amusing though – and really puts the current presidential administration on display… rules and principles apply to anybody but us.  

Keep in mind that, in the USA generally, gas (and utilities generally) are typically supplied by private corporations.  In the case of Boston and surroundings, the gas is bought wholesale and sold retail by Columbia Gas Co., Eversource Co., National Grid Co. (doing business as Colonial Gas and Boston Gas), and Distrigas of Massachusetts.  Meanwhile, the gas comes in at some gasification unloading plant site, where the tanker ties up, and that could be any one of these companies or yet another company.  So the "paper trail" gets a bit cloudy. 

Personally, I suspect that whoever is attempting to hide the paper trail is doing that in the trans-ship point in Europe. That would point to the Malaysian firm Petronas.  And no private gas distribution company in Massachusetts is going to have any leverage over Petronas in Malaysia, that's for sure. 

What this little saga does point out is that there is insufficient pipeline capacity in New England.  And whose fault is that?  Why, the Greenies, of course.    Could you, in the short term, go use European-built LNG carrier ships to plug the gap?  Of course you could.  Go blame Congress for that one.  Fools, all. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

I have not had any exposure to LNG trading or transportation. But if is anything like crude – and I suspect it is – it would be very easy for a buyer to trace the origin of a cargo if they wanted to. Now, if this story is true, Boston can hardly be faulted for making a financially logical decision. Such is the free market. And Boston would hardly be the first entity to weigh financials over principles. But, if true, it is amusing though – and really puts the current presidential administration on display… rules and principles apply to anybody but us.  

Tanker Trackers may track these @Marina Schwarzmay know ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

I think they only track crude. Only seen crude in their Twitter feed. Kpler tracks LNG, though. And indeed, it's very easy to track the origin of a cargo. There's no Iran tankers hiding involved, after all.

 

P.S. OK, I couldn't help it. RT is as propaganda as the Washington Post or The Times. And it regularly quotes -- and hyperlinks -- outlets such as the FT, the NYT, etc. Can we tone down the phobia, please? Every single news outlet has owners. Whether they are corporate or governmental makes no difference. They all push agendas that involve bias. Thank you.

Edited by Marina Schwarz
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

These terrible Russians has the cheapest gas in the world. 

I understand that democratic LNG gas is more priopriate but you cant change one economic factor - price of gas.

Russians has cheapest gas because of geological factors and gasification in freezy Yamal Penisula is also cheaper than in a lot warmer parts of the world = simple matter of phisics

I understand some people cant stand this but its matter of simple geology and economy that its more compepetive source of gas not RT propaganda. 

Russia is sometimes called KSA of gas market so it will be a swing producer because it can produce gas below 1 $ per mbbtu and no other country apart from Iran can do that = read some reports if you dont believe.

A simple fact that democratic LNG from America is at least 30-40 % more expensive after landing in Europe is something people like Jan van Eck really dont want to talk about.  I suggest not to mix economy with politics because USSR didnt do this= it has never cut supplies to Europe even at the heights of cold war and will not do this now even if West is trying to add Ukraine to western sphere of infuence which will lead to new Cold War because it extremely agressive move and another step in breaking agreements made with Gorbachov.

 

I also often check RT website= I see no difference with Washington Post or any other western newspaper. Its of course biased to russian point of view  but if someone call this channel propaganda I would like to point a very strong antirussian bias in western media  and I would call this propaganda too.

Edited by Tomasz
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tomasz said:

 

A simple fact that democratic LNG from America is at least 30-40 % more expensive after landing in Europe is something people like Jan van Eck really dont want to talk about. 

"People like Jan van Eck"?   Excuse me, but who are you to discourse on what I do or don't "like to talk about"? 

Stick to the issues.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 11/17/2018 at 9:23 PM, Jan van Eck said:

Keep in mind that, in the USA generally, gas (and utilities generally) are typically supplied by private corporations.  In the case of Boston and surroundings, the gas is bought wholesale and sold retail by Columbia Gas Co., Eversource Co., National Grid Co. (doing business as Colonial Gas and Boston Gas), and Distrigas of Massachusetts.  Meanwhile, the gas comes in at some gasification unloading plant site, where the tanker ties up, and that could be any one of these companies or yet another company.  So the "paper trail" gets a bit cloudy. 

Personally, I suspect that whoever is attempting to hide the paper trail is doing that in the trans-ship point in Europe. That would point to the Malaysian firm Petronas.  And no private gas distribution company in Massachusetts is going to have any leverage over Petronas in Malaysia, that's for sure. 

What this little saga does point out is that there is insufficient pipeline capacity in New England.  And whose fault is that?  Why, the Greenies, of course.    Could you, in the short term, go use European-built LNG carrier ships to plug the gap?  Of course you could.  Go blame Congress for that one.  Fools, all. 

Jan, 

Whilst I agree that this story points out some interesting things such as stupidity of the Jones Act, insufficient power infrastructure in the US (no doubt caused by lack of national energy policy); I cannot understand, if this story is indeed true, that you so easily dismiss and excuse that the American buyers of LNG chose financial logic over principles... Do you really think that American buyers could not find a seller that could provide them with a real certificate of origin if they wanted to?

 

And ps. I can fully understand going with financial logic. I just find it amusing considering all the talk that is otherwise coming out of the White House... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Jan, 

Whilst I agree that this story points out some interesting things such as stupidity of the Jones Act, insufficient power infrastructure in the US (no doubt caused by lack of national energy policy); I cannot understand, if this story is indeed true, that you so easily dismiss and excuse that the American buyers of LNG chose financial logic over principles... Do you really think that American buyers could not find a seller that could provide them with a real certificate of origin if they wanted to?

.. 

The Jones Act is there in order to "protect"  US shipyards.  The reality is that, aside from some barges and tugboats and subsidized ferries, nothing else gets built there.  Nobody is going to go build some general cargo containership in a US yard, they could never earn the money back. those things are built in Korea and China and sometimes Romania.  So the Americans go without, surrendering the trade to the foreigners.  The Jones Act continues because of political inertia; nobody wants to be seen as voting against US jobs - even if they don't exist.

The "insufficient infrastructure" is emphatically NOT caused by lack of national energy policy.  It is totally a function of the hysterical Greenies filing lawsuits. They have developed the practice of filing sequential lawsuits to a fine art form. Nothing gets built.

And nobody asks for a "certificate of origin," especially from some outfit like Petronas, simply because it is assumed that any such Certificate would be a falsity.  The assumption is that the certificate writers just make it up and put some Stamp on it. Nobody seriously believes that people from the Far East are going to be honest with Americans.  No chance on that.  

P.S.:  Let me add a PS to the above post.  Anyone who understands Americans would know that Americans would gladly pay more for "clean" gas than Russian gas.  You see that every single day with the issue of "conflict diamonds."  Americans are easily the single largest consumer group of diamonds, and they willingly pay thousands more for a diamond that can be certified to come from a conflict-free source  (such as Canada). Also, US consumers are now (slowly) moving away from mined stones and buying ones made in a factory.  What this demonstrates is that US gas buyers remain helpless against the pervasive skulduggery that exists in the world oil/gas trade.  It is not the Buyer who is looking at his pocketbook, it is the Seller. 

Edited by Jan van Eck
Added PS.
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

The Jones Act is there in order to "protect"  US shipyards.  The reality is that, aside from some barges and tugboats and subsidized ferries, nothing else guts built there.  Nobody is going to go build some general cargo containership in a US yard, they could never earn the money back. those things are built in Korea and China and sometimes Romania.  So the Americans go without, surrendering the trade to the foreigners.  The Jones Act continues because of political inertia; nobody wants to be seen as voting against US jobs - even if they don't exist.

The "insufficient infrastructure" is emphatically NOT caused by lack of national energy policy.  It is totally a function of the hysterical Greenies filing lawsuits. They have developed the practice of filing sequential lawsuits to a fine art form. Nothing gets built.

And nobody asks for a "certificate of origin," especially from some outfit like Petronas, simply because it is assumed that any such Certificate would be a falsity.  The assumption is that the certificate writers just make it up and put some Stamp on it. Nobody seriously believes that people from the Far East are going to be honest with Americans.  No chance on that.  

On the Jones Act - my understanding is that it is being backed by a really strong GoM lobby consisting of offshore ship owners (ships for offshore oil and gas production and exploration) and shipyards. But we have discussed this previously. 

I would actually like to hear more on your take of the insufficient infrastructure. What the problems are and their causes? 

On the certificate of origin I have to admit that I have never had any exposure to LNG transportation or trading. But I know that it is normal in crude. And there are also other sellers than Petronas. If buyers wanted to they could buy from Norways Equinor. I don't think they would falsify a certificate of origin. It might be at a premium though. 

And ps. I can fully understand going with financial logic. It is logical, really. I just find it amusing considering all the talk that is otherwise coming out of the White House... 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

 

I would actually like to hear more on your take of the insufficient infrastructure. What the problems are and their causes? 

 

Gotta take a break here, will try to get back to you tomorrow with more. 

As to American desires not to buy or trade with countries that are under Sanctions, see my P.S. just added above. 

Incidentally, on a strictly personal level I have no issues with doing business with Russian businessmen.  I buy specialized auto parts from Russia.  Why not?  The average Russian is a perfectly decent person.  I once took a busload of Judges from the court systems in Moscow, at the higher levels  (equal to US appellate and Supreme courts) on a tour through New York City, explaining the peculiarities of how New Yorkers do things, and I found them to be perfectly decent, quite attentive, curious, and friendly folks  (they also spoke good English).  The average Russians are not the bogeymen that the press makes them out to be.  The big problem is Putin and his cronies, who are bandits and have effectively hijacked an entire country, and loot and pillage and kill with total impunity.  I think the Russians would be delighted to get rid of Putin, his  "in group." and the Oligarchs if they could figure out how to do it.  Putin is a scourge and a monster, a man without soul.  It is a real problem. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 11/17/2018 at 3:13 AM, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

I have not had any exposure to LNG trading or transportation. But if is anything like crude – and I suspect it is – it would be very easy for a buyer to trace the origin of a cargo if they wanted to. Now, if this story is true, Boston can hardly be faulted for making a financially logical decision. Such is the free market. And Boston would hardly be the first entity to weigh financials over principles. But, if true, it is amusing though – and really puts the current presidential administration on display… rules and principles apply to anybody but us.  

I believe the point of contention is not just Europe buying Russian gas, but Europe buying enough Russian gas to become dependent and then expecting the US to defend them from Russia.  The US purchases only trivial amounts of Russian gas and provides for its own defense.  Thus, the principle of the matter allows us to buy Russian gas while complaining about Europe's behavior.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You, guys, so romantic! Heartless monsters and protection. :)

I'll say this once and once only: few, apparently, remember the Yeltsin times. I do and apparently the Russians do. Putin is far from a fairytale monster. He is an extremely pragmatic person as evidenced by his economic track record (it was published by the BBC sometime last year I think. The figures would hurt romantic souls, I'm afraid). Europe is not a damsel in distress that needs the protection of Noble Big American Brother from the Big Bad Wolf Volodya. It's an elderly lady with a schizoid condition and BBWV couldn't care less about conquering it with anything else but gas. As does NBAB because it's producing so much gas it needs markets for it. Anyone who can lay off the ideology (I'm far too polite to use the word propaganda for anti-Russian information, ahem, because we all know propaganda only comes from one place and one place only) will see the facts for what they are. Markets.

 

Incidentally, on a side note, I've been thinking that there isn't that much difference between the way the U.S. and Russia are being governed. One has the big corporations in the palm of its government's hand and the other has the government in the palm of the corporations' hands. Kind of a mirror image but with the same consequences, really.

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

5 hours ago, mthebold said:

I believe the point of contention is not just Europe buying Russian gas, but Europe buying enough Russian gas to become dependent and then expecting the US to defend them from Russia.  The US purchases only trivial amounts of Russian gas and provides for its own defense.  Thus, the principle of the matter allows us to buy Russian gas while complaining about Europe's behavior.

Do as I say; not as do... Yeah, that'll work. 

As with all things in life - balance is needed. Had the white house been a little balanced in their rheteoric we would not be been having this discussion.

I particularly like @Marina Schwarzs take on this... 

Edited by Rasmus Jorgensen
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Marina Schwarz said:

Incidentally, on a side note, I've been thinking that there isn't that much difference between the way the U.S. and Russia are being governed. One has the big corporations in the palm of its government's hand and the other has the government in the palm of the corporations' hands. Kind of a mirror image but with the same consequences, really.

Yup.  For that matter, there isn't much difference between any reasonably successful country.  They all require competent people to keep things running, competent people don't work for free, and corporate-government partnerships are as yet the best way to organize everything.  It's somewhat amusing that fascism was ostensibly defeated, but we all ended up adopting its corporate-government system.

 

6 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Do as I say; not as do... Yeah, that'll work. 

As with all things in life - balance is needed. Had the white house been a little balanced in their rheteoric we would not be been having this discussion.

I particularly like @Marina Schwarzs take on this... 

Sounds like the US could save a lot on its defense bill.  I'm in favor of that. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 11/21/2018 at 8:31 PM, mthebold said:

Sounds like the US could save a lot on its defense bill.  I'm in favor of that. 

I am too. I have said it before - Europe needs to step up and fill the vacuum. If given the choice between sinking and swimming EU will swim... Atleast I hope so.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

You should compare spheres of infuence in 1989 and 2018 and then check whether its really agressive Russia moving westward or Nato moving eastward.

For me Nato troops are now in Baltic countries something like 150 km from Petersburg and brittish soldiers in last week trained on Ukraine.

No sane russian leader can allow Ukraine to join Nato if he wants to stay in power -its matter of national security. Putin said it very very clearly in famous Munich speech in 2007 that Georgia and Ukraine is red line but West didnt accept that fact so we have 2 wars about accession to Nato.

So if someone did expect another reaction from Putin he is just stupid or wants a new cold war and russian-chinese alliance because its natural reaction to Nato expansion eastward.

Apart from two military conflicts where Russia defended status quo.

As I said Putin told about it in 2007 even before georgian war that no great power can accept hostile military alliance on its border especially after agreement made with Gorbachov- you just neeed to read his speech to understand that these two wars was natural reaction of great power and western leaders were informed about it in advance.

Edited by Tomasz
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 11/24/2018 at 4:27 PM, Tomasz said:

You should compare spheres of infuence in 1989 and 2018 and then check whether its really agressive Russia moving westward or Nato moving eastward.

I've also made this point. But what made Georgia a country that needed to be invaded? And even as I type it's not unusual for a Georgian to wake up and see a bit more encroachment overnight.

Georgia has great wine, food, and people. One of my favorite places in the world. But I don't they were invaded for the wine or bread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0