Poland signs 20-year deal on U.S. LNG supplies

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

Poland, always cautious about getting ensnared in Russian gas dependency, has now finalized a long-term contract for LNG gas from the USA. To quote from the press release:

Poland signs 20-year LNG deal with U.S. company. Poland’s state-owned natural gas company inked a 20-year agreement to import LNG from the U.S., a business decision that also affects geopolitics in Europe. Polish Oil & Gas Company, or PGNiG, signed a deal with Sempra Energy’s (NYSE: SRE) Port Arthur LNG facility, importing 2 million metric tons of LNG per year. The project has not received an FID yet, but the agreement with Poland could move it forward. The U.S. government has long pushed LNG exports as a vehicle to pry away Eastern Europe from dependence on Russia. 

-----------------------------------

This has the added benefit of providing a market for the by-product excess gas being uncorked with all that shale oil drilling.  From the Polish perspective, will it cost more than Russian gas?  Interestingly, probably not.  Russia has long been raising its gas pricing to come in just under the price of substitute gas.  Is Russia a market manipulator?  But of course.  They set the price to whatever they figure they can get.  The Poles no longer will play that game, and buy their energy security directly from a large, stable supplier  (and with a massive navy to back it up), the USA.  Smart move!

Edited December 21, 2018 by Jan van Eck

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

Just now, mthebold said:

So Russian gas, while technically capable of being cheaper than imported LNG, is not much cheaper in Poland.  Is this true of all nations Russia exports to? 

Except for Ukraine, where there is no alternative supply.  there, the Russians (Gasprom) simply whore the Ukrainians.  Ukraine now is looking at "reversing" a gas pipeline that previously ran as a transit line into Poland. If you look at a topographic map of the Polish-Ukraine border, you will note that there is this long plain or valley, relatively flat, between the two mountain ridges that define the borders with Slovakia-Hungary-Romania to the South, and the ridge along the Northern Border with Belarus.  It is flat running from Lublin in Southeast Poland down into the valley near Lviv and on to Kiev.  Can that pipeline be reversed?  Probably, but it requires a lot of re-work on the compressor stations and also needs a steady supply from the LNG unloading plant on the Polish Baltic, at the old German port of Swinemunde, where the Trelleborg ferry docks.  That city is now called Swinoujscie,  which is Swinemunde in Polish  (that area was ceded to Poland after WWII).  

Is there going to be sufficient capacity to pump gas from the Baltic into Ukraine?  Probably not, but every little bit helps.  If the Americans wanted to really grab a solid market share for gas export, they would rush to install a gasification plant at the port of Odessa. But that requires both hustle and imagination. Whoever does it, will have a very big chunk of the Ukrainian gas market in perpetuity. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

4 hours ago, mthebold said:

One one hand, we appear to be abandoning Syria and placing greater pressure on the Middle East.  We don't appear to be terribly interested defending those countries or capturing those markets.  On the other hand, we're developing productive relationships with Eastern European countries who understand strategic thinking, are willing to make mutually beneficial deals, and have the potential to be excellent long-term partners. 

Is US foreign policy starting to make sense, or am I imagining things? 

There is not much of a market in the Middle East for US goods outside of military hardware.  Admittedly, that is a big market.  Also, the Arabs seem to like full-size Chevrolets, for their powerful air conditioners.  I am guessing that there is a market for commodity foodstuffs, but the specialty products such as milk and cheese is exported from Denmark; they seem to have a lock on that market.  I remain unconvinced that Caterpillar has a sales advantage over Komatsu for construction equipment.  

Meanwhile, the old Eastern Bloc countries are eager customers for just about anything and everything the US and UK can produce.  If you have a willing customer, then a fellow would be a fool not to pursue it as far as it might go.  Especially when the alternative is the Russian Army marching in. 

Polish shipyards are of good quality and are hungry for work.  If the US were smart about it, they would farm out construction of Navy frigates to Poland, get the hulls and engines built up and then import the ship for fitting out with the munitions in the USA.  And the US would be buying ferryboats from Poland, Norway and FInland, to tap into that expertise. But the US Govt is not particularly smart,and holds all that work back for high-cost, mediocre-quality US yards.  In my view, build up Polish shipbuilding and sell the Poles and Ukrainians Abrams battle tanks. They need them, and we have lots and lots, sitting out in Ohio.  There are easily a thousand main battle tanks sitting in lots outside the old Chrysler tank factory, never run.  Totally new and already surplus.

Edited January 1, 2019 by Jan van Eck

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

1 hour ago, mthebold said:

Makes me wonder if they're preparing for something, but hiding that fact behind politics. 

On that note, I've often wondered if military "waste" is a way to hide black projects...

No.  The reason is strictly  politics.  Ohio is a "battleground" State, and whoever wins Ohio wins the Presidency.  So both sides are loathe to do anything to cut payrolls and employment in Ohio.  The Congress then issues Statute that requires the army to buy another 500 tanks from that tank factory.  The army has no interest in the heavy tracked tanks, they are logistically difficult.  The army is going over to wheeled tanks, both lighter in armor and no tracks.  The wheeled ones are built by General Dynamics in London, Ontario, using Canadian labor.  They have four drive axles and eight monster wheels  (two for each axle).  The heavy tracked tanks continue to get built, and as they are finished, they are driven out to this field around the corner, tarped, and parked.  The army never actually takes delivery  (maybe on paper, but not physically).  The Congress keeps appropriating those funds, the factory keeps building, and the voters are assuaged for their votes.  Welcome to America, Ohio style. 

[John Foote + 1,135]

On 1/1/2019 at 4:46 PM, Jan van Eck said:

There is not much of a market in the Middle East for US goods outside of military hardware. 

Not so sure that is true. Perhaps the last place on the planet where giant gas guzzling cars are sought after. American products and made-in-America means something, far more than it seems to here in the USA. Us overeducated folks turn our nose up to American culture and food, but my do they eat it up. Not to mention the fortunes they spend on American oil service companies. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

On 1/1/2019 at 9:03 PM, mthebold said:

Granted, politics is probably what the politicians see. 

From a military point of view, however, I know you can't fight conventional wars with light "tanks".  In fact, "tank" is a misnomer for these vehicles; they're only useful for scouting and anti-infantry operations.  Light armored vehicles have neither the survivability nor the firepower to be useful in a near-peer engagement, as the British discovered in North Africa.  In fact, anything short of a heavy tank is a death trap, as the US M-4 Sherman repeatedly demonstrated.  That's why we pay usurious prices to operate & maintain heavy armored vehicles.  Armored vehicle designers and the governments who fund them have sacrificed to that particular deity since it smote them in the 1940's. 

 

Not really.  It would appear that the only plausible place where there might be a multi-tank engagement, what you refer to as a "conventional war," would be slugged out either in Ukraine, or possibly between India and Pakistan, or on the North German Plain  (extending into Poland).  The protagonists on the North German Plain would be NATO on one side and Russia on the other.  However, US Doctrine is no longer to be the protective Big Brother to Europe, and while the US builds heavy tanks, it no longer has any need for them for its own army.  The decision to go to war against Russia is not one that is plausible.  If Russia gets into some Border scrape with say Poland, then the apparent Trump Doctrine is that Europe can go sort it out amongst themselves. 

The heavy tank is not plausible in other scenarios.  Tanks are not going to be parked in Taiwan. The US is not going to go invade Iran with heavy tanks. It is just not in the cards; those conflicts would be fought with air power, and plausibly with drones.  OK,  Iraq had tank battles  (which the Republican Guards got clobbered in, the Abrams being unmatched), but nothing there could not have been accomplished with drone power. 

If the US is not going to use them, then the only purpose for the US to have these heavy tanks is to act as some sort of deterrent.  Do tanks parked in Germany act as a deterrent to Putin screwing with the Ukrainians?  Apparently not.  Remember that the Putin Doctrine is to maintain relative strength, not through absolute numbers, but by division among the Allies (i.e. Nato and friends) and destabilization along the border countries.  So you see Putin using "volunteers" to destabilize areas such as Crimea and Luhansk, and using blockade freighters to destabilize marine passage to Mariupol.  It is plausible that Putin uses armor to invade Ukraine and seize Kiev, in order to install a puppet Communist government that submits to Russia, but if Putin did, unless the US (NATO) has lots of armor between the Border and Kharkov, I don't see how you can stop him.  And Putin has already declared that any attempt to reinforce the Ukrainians will result in "war."   That is Putin-speak for a direct border invasion. 

The other problem with the Abrams tank is that it weighs in at some colossal number, I think at 180,000 lbs or thereabouts, way too heavy to transport over roads.  So with the tanks parked in Germany and the combat front at Kharkov, those tanks have to be loaded onto special train flatcars and hauled across most of Europe.  Unless the Army physically seizes, at gunpoint, the Deutsche Bahn Railroad and installs, at gunpoint, its own controllers for the rail traffic, the freight is not going to move, not with any speed.  The last time the US Army tried to move heavy equipment, it took over two months for DB to move it.  You can surmise that DB is not co-operative with the US Army. Plus, it would appear that Germany is not that interested in the fate of Ukraine.  

Assuming you can corral the rail transport, the next problem is at the Polish-Ukraine Border.  German rail is 1435 mm, or 4 ft-8-1/2 inches.  Ukraine is on Russian gauge, which is five feet, or 3-1/2 inches wider.  Thus all trains stop at that Border area until the wheel-sets are changed out, which is a bit of a procedure -  the flatcar has to be jacked up, one set of bogies unhooked and rolled away, another set rolled in, and then re-assembled - before the train can proceed.  All that takes tie and requires the pre-positioning of rail trucks  (the wheel assemblies) and it requires the manpower, plus of course the Russians will know it is coming, but the tanks will still be a thousand miles from the Front. 

So there is no plausible way to get the tanks to the Ukrainian Front undetected, and if there is an attempt to move them, it triggers the five divisions Putin now has stationed on hair-trigger only thirty miles from Kharkov. Then the tanks will be fighting (eventually, when they get there) right next to Russian airspace, with lots of Russian fighter aircraft right there to start shooting at them.  When it all adds up, what good are they?   Not much.  

So the US army has gone to these 8-wheel light-armor tanks, which are mobile, fast, and able to scoot over rough terrain.  They can be fitted up as gun carriages, i.e. a big cannon to go shoot at actual tanks.  But of equal importance, they can be used directly against infantry. For the kinds of lower-intensity warfare that the Army envisions in the future, they make more sense.  So the Army buys these and the politicians make the big tracked stuff, which sits in the field behind that factory, satisfying the employment criteria of swing-State Ohio. 

Edited January 6, 2019 by Jan van Eck

[ronwagn + 6,290]

6 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Not really.  It would appear that the only plausible place where there might be a multi-tank engagement, what you refer to as a "conventional war," would be slugged out either in Ukraine, or possibly between India and Pakistan, or on the North German Plain  (extending into Poland).  The protagonists on the North German Plain would be NATO on one side and Russia on the other.  However, US Doctrine is no longer to be the protective Big Brother to Europe, and while the US builds heavy tanks, it no longer has any need for them for its own army.  The decision to go to war against Russia is not one that is plausible.  If Russia gets into some Border scrape with say Poland, then the apparent Trump Doctrine is that Europe can go sort it out amongst themselves. 

The heavy tank is not plausible in other scenarios.  Tanks are not going to be parked in Taiwan. The US is not going to go invade Iran with heavy tanks. It is just not in the cards; those conflicts would be fought with air power, and plausibly with drones.  OK,  Iraq had tank battles  (which the Republican Guards got clobbered in, the Abrams being unmatched), but nothing there could not have been accomplished with drone power. 

If the US is not going to use them, then the only purpose for the US to have these heavy tanks is to act as some sort of deterrent.  Do tanks parked in Germany act as a deterrent to Putin screwing with the Ukrainians?  Apparently not.  Remember that the Putin Doctrine is to maintain relative strength, not through absolute numbers, but by division among the Allies (i.e. Nato and friends) and destabilization along the border countries.  So you see Putin using "volunteers" to destabilize areas such as Crimea and Luhansk, and using blockade freighters to destabilize marine passage to Mariupol.  It is plausible that Putin uses armor to invade Ukraine and seize Kiev, in order to install a puppet Communist government that submits to Russia, but if Putin did, unless the US (NATO) has lots of armor between the Border and Kharkov, I don't see how you can stop him.  And Putin has already declared that any attempt to reinforce the Ukrainians will result in "war."   That is Putin-speak for a direct border invasion. 

The other problem with the Abrams tank is that it weighs in at some colossal number, I think at 180,000 lbs or thereabouts, way too heavy to transport over roads.  So with the tanks parked in Germany and the combat front at Kharkov, those tanks have to be loaded onto special train flatcars and hauled across most of Europe.  Unless the Army physically seizes, at gunpoint, the Deutsche Bahn Railroad and installs, at gunpoint, its own controllers for the rail traffic, the freight is not going to move, not with any speed.  The last time the US Army tried to move heavy equipment, it took over two months for DB to move it.  You can surmise that DB is not co-operative with the US Army. Plus, it would appear that Germany is not that interested in the fate of Ukraine.  

Assuming you can corral the rail transport, the next problem is at the Polish-Ukraine Border.  German rail is 1435 mm, or 4 ft-8-1/2 inches.  Ukraine is on Russian gauge, which is five feet, or 3-1/2 inches wider.  Thus all trains stop at that Border area until the wheel-sets are changed out, which is a bit of a procedure -  the flatcar has to be jacked up, one set of bogies unhooked and rolled away, another set rolled in, and then re-assembled - before the train can proceed.  All that takes tie and requires the pre-positioning of rail trucks  (the wheel assemblies) and it requires the manpower, plus of course the Russians will know it is coming, but the tanks will still be a thousand miles from the Front. 

So there is no plausible way to get the tanks to the Ukrainian Front undetected, and if there is an attempt to move them, it triggers the five divisions Putin now has stationed on hair-trigger only thirty miles from Kharkov. Then the tanks will be fighting (eventually, when they get there) right next to Russian airspace, with lots of Russian fighter aircraft right there to start shooting at them.  When it all adds up, what good are they?   Not much.  

So the US army has gone to these 8-wheel light-armor tanks, which are mobile, fast, and able to scoot over rough terrain.  They can be fitted up as gun carriages, i.e. a big cannon to go shoot at actual tanks.  But of equal importance, they can be used directly against infantry. For the kinds of lower-intensity warfare that the Army envisions in the future, they make more sense.  So the Army buys these and the politicians make the big tracked stuff, which sits in the field behind that factory, satisfying the employment criteria of swing-State Ohio. 

Very interesting information. But, America has supplied Ukraine with handheld tank killing weapons that are programmed to drop right on top of tank turrets and kill all occupants. They do not strike the more heavily armed parts of the tanks. In Iraq we showed how our A1 Tank Killer aircraft can make quick work of tanks also. I realize there are sophisticated Russian anti-aircraft systems to factor in though. 

 https://southfront.org/ukraine-tested-us-supplied-javelin-anti-tank-missiles-videos/

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

1 hour ago, ronwagn said:

Very interesting information. But, America has supplied Ukraine with handheld tank killing weapons that are programmed to drop right on top of tank turrets and kill all occupants. They do not strike the more heavily armed parts of the tanks. In Iraq we showed how our A1 Tank Killer aircraft can make quick work of tanks also. I realize there are sophisticated Russian anti-aircraft systems to factor in though. 

 https://southfront.org/ukraine-tested-us-supplied-javelin-anti-tank-missiles-videos/

The real question is: can the Javelin kill an Abrams?   Probably not, although I don't know the answer  (and the army is unlikely to tell you!).  The Abrams is massively heavy.  It is designed to be the total King of the battlefield.  

[Illurion + 894]

On 1/1/2019 at 6:42 PM, mthebold said:

Makes me wonder if they're preparing for something, but hiding that fact behind politics. 

On that note, I've often wondered if military "waste" is a way to hide black projects...

Since we are essentially at "peace",  since few of the wars we are in at the moment require massive numbers of tanks,  we end up having to "park" them somewhere.

I suspect the reason so many is that the Government is keeping the construction line going at a slow pace,  rather than let it be canceled.

It is hard to restart a construction line, once it is stopped.

[Tomasz + 1,608]

Russian gas is at least 30-40

On 1/1/2019 at 7:12 PM, mthebold said:

So Russian gas, while technically capable of being cheaper than imported LNG, is not much cheaper in Poland.  Is this true of all nations Russia exports to? 

A price of russian gas for Poland according to bloomberg was 197$ in 2017.

Us Lng will cost at least 280-300 $ so something lIke 40% more.

 

But you can of course dream on.

Not many Poles are convinced thats a good deal.

Because for the time being we have  third lowest wage rate per hour in European Union just ahead Bulgaria and Romania and expensive gas will of course kill some of compepetivness of polish industry especially chemical one.

Whats more polish people still cant afford to use gas so they burn coal of worst quality and we have worst air quality in Europe and that probably wont change.  You should visit some polish towns and cities and take a breath of this air  to realise cheap gas from Russia is only solution.

Edited January 6, 2019 by Tomasz

[ronwagn + 6,290]

16 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Very interesting information. But, America has supplied Ukraine with handheld tank killing weapons that are programmed to drop right on top of tank turrets and kill all occupants. They do not strike the more heavily armed parts of the tanks. In Iraq we showed how our A1 Tank Killer aircraft can make quick work of tanks also. I realize there are sophisticated Russian anti-aircraft systems to factor in though. 

 https://southfront.org/ukraine-tested-us-supplied-javelin-anti-tank-missiles-videos/

You saw the explosions I presume. I do not see how anyone inside could survive those hits. 

[Illurion + 894]

Where i live,  there are a number of LNG facilities open now.  New LNG fueled tankers now export American LNG to Puerto Rico.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

2 hours ago, Illurion said:

Where i live,  there are a number of LNG facilities open now.  New LNG fueled tankers now export American LNG to Puerto Rico.

Thanks for the information. LNG is ideally suited for coastal delivery.