The Briefing Room
General Category => Science, Technology and Knowledge => Energy => Topic started by: Elderberry on February 05, 2022, 03:31:18 pm
-
The Conversation by Amy Myers Jaffe 1/31/2022
Can the US find enough natural gas sources to neutralize Russia’s energy leverage over Europe?
The prospect of conflict between Russia and NATO countries over Ukraine has raised fears of an energy crisis in Europe. Russia provides nearly half of Europe’s natural gas, and some leaders worry that Moscow could tighten the flow if hostilities break out. To weaken Russia’s leverage, the Biden administration is working to secure additional gas shipments to Europe from other sources. Global energy policy expert Amy Myers Jaffe explains how much gas is available and what’s involved in rerouting it.
How dependent is Europe on natural gas, and who are its main suppliers?
Natural gas represents about one-fifth of all primary energy used across Europe. It accounts for about 20% of electric power generation and also is used for heating and industrial processes.
Russia is the largest supplier of natural gas to Europe, sending about 40% of the continent’s supplies shipped by pipeline. The next-largest suppliers via pipeline are Norway (22%), Algeria (18%) and Azerbaijan 9%. Europe also receives natural gas that is liquefied and delivered by ship.
In recent months, European imports of liquefied natural gas, or LNG, from the U.S. and elsewhere reached record levels at around 400 million cubic meters per day. To put that in perspective, a single LNG cargo ship can hold roughly 125,000-175,000 cubic meters of natural gas – enough energy to warm 17 million British homes for one winter day.
What are the biggest constraints for exporters on sending more gas to Europe?
LNG is made by cooling natural gas to minus 260 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 162 degrees Celsius), which reduces its volume by a factor of more than 600. Natural gas is piped to a port, processed in a liquefaction plant and then loaded into specialized insulated, temperature-controlled tankers for shipment by sea.
To receive LNG, an offloading port must have a regasification plant that converts the LNG back to a gaseous form so it can be sent by pipeline to end users. Both liquefaction plants and regasification plants cost billions of dollars and take multiple years to build.
Following a similar crisis in 2009, when a financial conflict with Ukraine prompted Russia to suspend gas shipments for 20 days, Europe substantially expanded its number of regasification facilities to 29. There is still currently space in European regasification receiving terminals to import more LNG, and plenty of storage space to hold imported supply virtually indefinitely. But many of the world’s top suppliers are maxed-out, with little capacity to produce and liquefy more natural gas than they are already moving.
More: https://theconversation.com/can-the-us-find-enough-natural-gas-sources-to-neutralize-russias-energy-leverage-over-europe-175824 (https://theconversation.com/can-the-us-find-enough-natural-gas-sources-to-neutralize-russias-energy-leverage-over-europe-175824)
-
Pedo Joe put the "X' on XL. Bad move Joe.
If we do subsidize Europe's supply. You know who will pay? The U.S. consumer and homeowner .... who will pay skyrocketing utility bills and inflation passed down from higher utility costs.
-
Can the US find enough natural gas sources to neutralize Russia’s energy leverage over Europe?
:yowsa: Very easily! That is why the traitor in the WH isn't allowing it.
-
NO.
If the natural gas doesn't have to be extracted and used right away, we SHOULD NOT sell it to Europe or to anybody else.
Rather, we should "husband" such resources for OUR OWN future.
Let Europe take care of itself.
-
NO.
If the natural gas doesn't have to be extracted and used right away, we SHOULD NOT sell it to Europe or to anybody else.
Rather, we should "husband" such resources for OUR OWN future.
Let Europe take care of itself.
:yowsa:
-
Whoopi is not busy right now.
-
No... There are other ways to supply Europe.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/erdogan-reportedly-says-turkey-and-israel-could-cooperate-on-gas-shipments-to-europe/ (https://www.timesofisrael.com/erdogan-reportedly-says-turkey-and-israel-could-cooperate-on-gas-shipments-to-europe/)
-
No... There are other ways to supply Europe.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/erdogan-reportedly-says-turkey-and-israel-could-cooperate-on-gas-shipments-to-europe/ (https://www.timesofisrael.com/erdogan-reportedly-says-turkey-and-israel-could-cooperate-on-gas-shipments-to-europe/)
Just for the record, I never said a word about WHERE the U.S. could find gas for Europe.
-
Just for the record, I never said a word about WHERE the U.S. could find gas for Europe.
But why should the US be involved with finding gas for Europe? Are they inexperienced children incapable of exploring or contracting with others on their own? Let Europe cut their throats if they want, they never liked us(unless it was to pull their chestnuts out of a war fire) anyway.
My exception to my disdain for Europe does not extend to the freedom loving former east block nations, the only ones that truly deserve our help.
-
But why should the US be involved with finding gas for Europe? Are they inexperienced children incapable of exploring or contracting with others on their own? Let Europe cut their throats if they want, they never liked us(unless it was to pull their chestnuts out of a war fire) anyway.
My exception to my disdain for Europe does not extend to the freedom loving former east block nations, the only ones that truly deserve our help.
I also never said we should do it for free @GtHawk
-
Why can't Europe develop their natural gas or don't they have any?
-
I also never said we should do it for free @GtHawk
@Bigun Sorry if You felt my comments were directed at you, they weren't meant to be. Rather they were meant as response to the premise I perceived in the article that the US must be responsible for other nations energy issues and poor choices.
-
@Bigun Sorry if You felt my comments were directed at you, they weren't meant to be. Rather they were meant as response to the premise I perceived in the article that the US must be responsible for other nations energy issues and poor choices.
Gotcha! :beer:
@GtHawk
-
Why should we? It's not our problem, nor our job.
-
Why can't Europe develop their natural gas or don't they have any?
They have some....
https://www.worldometers.info/gas/germany-natural-gas/ (https://www.worldometers.info/gas/germany-natural-gas/)
https://www.worldometers.info/gas/france-natural-gas/ (https://www.worldometers.info/gas/france-natural-gas/)
https://www.worldometers.info/gas/poland-natural-gas/ (https://www.worldometers.info/gas/poland-natural-gas/)
But they are way behind their needs.
-
NO.
If the natural gas doesn't have to be extracted and used right away, we SHOULD NOT sell it to Europe or to anybody else.
Rather, we should "husband" such resources for OUR OWN future.
Let Europe take care of itself.
Ridiculous argument. That is the Jimmy Carter approach that we are running out of natural gas so let's not use it for power generation but preserve it for 'noble uses' like heating and cooking. He was wrong over 40 years ago and that notion remains wrong.
Natural gas in this country has barely been tapped, even after so many years. Up until the late 1940's natural gas was considered a nuisance when discovered and not used beneficially but either flared when associated with discovering oil or the wells were simply capped and rig moved in order to look for oil.
Only in the 50s was natural gas considered useful, and the large interstate transmission lines were begun, and the industry began thriving, but always was inferior to oil discovery and extraction.
To date, almost al unoonventional drilling and production has concentrated on liquids, save in a few areas such as the Barnett Shale and the Marcellus where dry natural gas production has been proven commercial to exploit, mostly due to being close to markets. It was basically less lucrative to go after natural gas only, but if it came along with liquids, it was welcomed.
Fast forward a couple of decades since the unconventional boom began. Targeting prime liquids locations are increasingly harder and harder, not because the liquids are running out but because the commercial attractiveness of drilling and producing wells with liquids is simply not there. Unconventional zones by their very nature are in exceedingly poor quality intervals, hence the need for horizontal and fraccing technologies which have driven the bonanza. Unfortunately, that technology goes only so far when it comes to liquids as technology cannot change the character of the rock in the ground and it is still poor quality rock in which liquids have great difficulty in moving.
Not so the case for natural gas. It moves 10 to 2o times easier through this type of rock than does liquids. And there is a lot more rock containing gas than there is containing liquids. Examples abound, but one the Eagleford shale topped the unconventional liquids production at one time but at he liquids portion accounted for just a fraction of the area of the shale containing hydrocarbons.
Most of the resources of natural gas are awaiting to be tapped, and will greatly outlive us and generations into the future. It is not a stretch to consider the amounts of natural gas within the US as effectively unlimited.
-
Ridiculous argument. That is the Jimmy Carter approach that we are running out of natural gas so let's not use it for power generation but preserve it for 'noble uses' like heating and cooking. He was wrong over 40 years ago and that notion remains wrong.
Natural gas in this country has barely been tapped, even after so many years. Up until the late 1940's natural gas was considered a nuisance when discovered and not used beneficially but either flared when associated with discovering oil or the wells were simply capped and rig moved in order to look for oil.
Only in the 50s was natural gas considered useful, and the large interstate transmission lines were begun, and the industry began thriving, but always was inferior to oil discovery and extraction.
To date, almost al unoonventional drilling and production has concentrated on liquids, save in a few areas such as the Barnett Shale and the Marcellus where dry natural gas production has been proven commercial to exploit, mostly due to being close to markets. It was basically less lucrative to go after natural gas only, but if it came along with liquids, it was welcomed.
Fast forward a couple of decades since the unconventional boom began. Targeting prime liquids locations are increasingly harder and harder, not because the liquids are running out but because the commercial attractiveness of drilling and producing wells with liquids is simply not there. Unconventional zones by their very nature are in exceedingly poor quality intervals, hence the need for horizontal and fraccing technologies which have driven the bonanza. Unfortunately, that technology goes only so far when it comes to liquids as technology cannot change the character of the rock in the ground and it is still poor quality rock in which liquids have great difficulty in moving.
Not so the case for natural gas. It moves 10 to 2o times easier through this type of rock than does liquids. And there is a lot more rock containing gas than there is containing liquids. Examples abound, but one the Eagleford shale topped the unconventional liquids production at one time but at he liquids portion accounted for just a fraction of the area of the shale containing hydrocarbons.
Most of the resources of natural gas are awaiting to be tapped, and will greatly outlive us and generations into the future. It is not a stretch to consider the amounts of natural gas within the US as effectively unlimited.
Thanks @IsailedawayfromFR I was thinking along the same lines.
-
We already have it. The Government is preventing it from being developed.
-
Ridiculous argument. That is the Jimmy Carter approach that we are running out of natural gas so let's not use it for power generation but preserve it for 'noble uses' like heating and cooking. He was wrong over 40 years ago and that notion remains wrong.
Natural gas in this country has barely been tapped, even after so many years. Up until the late 1940's natural gas was considered a nuisance when discovered and not used beneficially but either flared when associated with discovering oil or the wells were simply capped and rig moved in order to look for oil.
Only in the 50s was natural gas considered useful, and the large interstate transmission lines were begun, and the industry began thriving, but always was inferior to oil discovery and extraction.
To date, almost al unoonventional drilling and production has concentrated on liquids, save in a few areas such as the Barnett Shale and the Marcellus where dry natural gas production has been proven commercial to exploit, mostly due to being close to markets. It was basically less lucrative to go after natural gas only, but if it came along with liquids, it was welcomed.
Fast forward a couple of decades since the unconventional boom began. Targeting prime liquids locations are increasingly harder and harder, not because the liquids are running out but because the commercial attractiveness of drilling and producing wells with liquids is simply not there. Unconventional zones by their very nature are in exceedingly poor quality intervals, hence the need for horizontal and fraccing technologies which have driven the bonanza. Unfortunately, that technology goes only so far when it comes to liquids as technology cannot change the character of the rock in the ground and it is still poor quality rock in which liquids have great difficulty in moving.
Not so the case for natural gas. It moves 10 to 2o times easier through this type of rock than does liquids. And there is a lot more rock containing gas than there is containing liquids. Examples abound, but one the Eagleford shale topped the unconventional liquids production at one time but at he liquids portion accounted for just a fraction of the area of the shale containing hydrocarbons.
Most of the resources of natural gas are awaiting to be tapped, and will greatly outlive us and generations into the future. It is not a stretch to consider the amounts of natural gas within the US as effectively unlimited.
Considering a substantial portion of current Natural Gas production is a by-product of oil production, and that flaring and methane leakage rules have become draconian, why not sell any surplus? To some extent, it supports prices to the degree that exploration and production remain profitable. There is a balance there, however, in that if the Gas becomes too expensive, other sources of energy will become more attractive.
That opens the back door to green new deals and such.
Currently, the geopolitics of producing areas, which limit infrastructure development for processing and distribution in Europe and the Middle East, not to mention Africa, ate probably the most serious factor to overcome, followed by the ecowhackos dashing about opposed to anything which might make the human condition a little better.
-
We already have it. The Government is preventing it from being developed.
Yes, a good portion of for sure. Think east and west coast of the US as a beginning, not mentioning federal lands or where the drivel beetle was sighted once.