Some months ago, while discussing coal markets and pricing here, I mentioned that natural gas pricing that everyone was depending on for cheap/clean energy in US would face upward pricing pressures. Liquefied Natural Gas markets opening in Europe would suck up the gas glut in US. Of course, pipelines to LNG conversion plants and ports had to be built, tankers to transport it, etc… all had to be constructed or reserved.
I had two points at the time.
1) Coal as energy source could return if the equation of;
coal + environmental costs < natural gas + environmental costs.
2) It is a strategic goal of US/NATO to reduce Europe’s dependence on Russian Nat Gas supplies.
These two factors could drive Nat Gas higher pricing and make coal an economic alternative…if the other associated costs could be worked out. This is not to tout or promote it as an energy source, just stating facts.
Already US Henry Hub bulk pricing of NG around $2.85- $3.00 mbtus vs coal’s $2.18 mbtu in US. Pipelines are being proposed from Northern WV/PA gas fields- through VA and splitting- one toward the coast, the other to high growth NC/SC. Ports under construction or being converted. Next couple of years, those ships will be sailing for Europe in greater numbers.
This is now being discussed openly in economic press.
—–excerpt——-
“US and Russia step up fight to supply Europe’s gas”
Jason Bordoff, a one-time adviser to former US President Barack Obama who runs Columbia University’s Centre on Global Energy Policy, suggests that while LNG is normally more expensive, Gazprom will still face painful choices as supplies from rivals make their way to Europe. The Russian group has to pick between “competing on price and defending market share” or “cutting back on supply to keep prices high”, he says.
If Gazprom decides to opt for the former, which Mr Bordoff thinks the evidence points to, then the Russian company will need to accept it is entering a price war that may hit its revenues even if it can keep raising sales in a region hungry for energy.
The US president’s overture to countries such as Poland chimes with the mood among pro-Nato politicians in central Europe, who resent Moscow’s leverage over their gas supply with their web of import pipelines. Some might happily rely more on the US for their gas, even if it means paying more. …..
————–
Of course, it always comes down to money. Finding the price of US LNG is tough to determine once it lands in Europe. Nice that these guys have worked it out.
LNG to Europe is about $6.00 per mbtu where Russian Gazprom supplies it at about $5.00 per mbtu. Around 20% surcharge. But, LNG is now being pooled into international markets, like oil with advent of US, Australia, and Mideast supplies. That means, like oil, the supplies can be bought and routed when the best price appears.
Gazprom has gone into hock with Western capital for new pipelines into Europe, and add to that downward price pressures and the added trouble of Sanctions…means less money in the pockets of Vlad and Co. Which means added pressure on Vlad.
This is one more slavo in the War On Czar Vladimir.
Russia has very few International products people want.
-Weapons: useful but limited market.
-Energy and other natural resources: dependent on global pricing
-software engineering
The last one has the premier example in Kaspersky Labs. Well regarded anti-malware, but since the hacking of the election; it has been downgraded and denied use in US govt/contractor networks. Also NATO and Western Europe will begin to question it. Always viewed with suspicion by US intel, now openly slagged. That is going to filter down to Enterprise and private use.
I always thought the OPEC over production had a geopolitical element against Russia and Iran. Now with major LNG exports on the horizon, even greater pressure.
That just leaves weapons as an export product to prop up foreign exchange.
To use a worn analogy-
US used economic sanctions against Japan for aggression in Asia. (As Russia in Ukraine) Got to the point, that secure their place in Asia and world stage and gain “respect” they staged Pearl Harbor. People in Tokyo who knew US, thought it was a mistake. the “Sleeping Giant” quote.
Well, I think the 2016 election was a cyber Pearl Harbor. Like then, it will take a couple of years to show real progress. Trump and Admin is toast already and you see the security hands in Congress/military stepping in to insure the Admin Chaos does not permanently damage US. I mean, good Lord, veto proof Sanctions Bill and pro forma Senate session. They know he is history.
What now has to be done is put pressure on Czar Vlad’s oligarch cronies. “I’m sorry Yuri, would love to do this deal, but can’t as long as Putin is in power. You know, sanctions and public opinion, the election and all that. I mean, with all the court case revelations…did he really think we would just stand by?”
Of course, that presupposes that US corporate interests have any patriotism left, aside from love of money. For years, they have been pushing stateless interest for profits over love of country. It may mean boycotts of their products and public shaming to make them tow the line.
Ridge
“US and Russia step up fight to supply Europe’s gas”
To me that explains the ongoing “Russia hacked the election” narrative and the sanctions. It’s really a fight between corporations to control the European gas market. Now, it makes sense!
BTW, you may already know this, but natural gas is about 70% methane and methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than carbon monoxide. CO2 is, of course, more prevalent.
This is why leaking natural gas and incompetent fracking is disastrous. But I thought burning it produces less CO2 (dioxide, BTW) than burning coal.
And of course with the (once frozen) swamps and tundra of Siberia now releasing methane trapped for eons, it’s game over.
Coal is pretty much pure carbon so burning one molecule of coal produces one molecule of carbon dioxide. For methane it also produces two molecules of water, so yes more energy is released because of the bound hydrogen. Water is also a greenhouse gas, so I would have to look up numbers and calculate which produces more greenhouse effect per watt-hour of energy released.
Added water is not an issue, sure its a greenhouse gas, but adding more wont change the concentration in the air, it is a balance of constant evaporation and percipitation.
Water does create positive feedback- when temperatures rise because of more athmospheric CO2 air can hold more water and the greenhouse effect will increase.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-basic.htm
That makes sense. Lots of people don’t realize that water is also a greenhouse gas and that’s what makes a runaway greenhouse possible, rising temperatures put more water vapor in the air which cause more temperature rise. In the end you have Venus with no liquid water and the equivalent of Earth’s oceans all in the form of steam.
Our increased production of natural gas is solely the result of fracking technology; prior to its widespread adoption, domestic natural gas production (using traditional means) had been declining and prices were rising. Fracking was supposedly a much higher cost method of production. Is this not correct?
What I am getting at is how on earth can fracking US NG, liquefying it, and transporting it to new infrastructure facilities and then by ship to another continent (which also has to build entirely new port facilities) EVER be price competitive with Russia’s natural gas product using pipelines to Europe?
There is of course no question that Europe’s extreme dependence on Russian gas for their very existent is a critical strategic problem, and a key element in Putin’s gambits.
And as for the “patriotism” of US corporations, all one need do is examine the career of Rexxon Tillerson to see how that is going to play. And look for the Repub Congress to propose subsidizing coal production, wich would be politically popular in Red and Purple states. People seem to think “the free market” will end coal; they forget that humans ultimately control the “the market”. What we have now is an emerging coalition of “Carbon states” (such as the US and Russia) who will happily work to burn all fossil fuels for their short term economic advantage.
Germany transitioned from nuclear to solar even though they don’t have a vast sunny southwest like we do.
Oklahoma would still be a big energy state with solar and wind farms (It’s windy too).
If you ever drive through the Texas and Oklahoma panhandles, you’ll see quite a few wind farms. Even before you hit the panhandles, there are quite a few. The geography is ideal, allowing for prevailing sustained southwest winds of 10-15 mph most of the time (back when I lived around that part of the world, we referred to that as a light breeze). A lot of land out there is not arable, and some arable land is getting more difficult to irrigate. Heck, there’s enough sunlight around there to make solar pretty viable as well. Always thought that Oklahoma could be a renewable energy mecca if only its politicians weren’t so blinded by a backward-thinking ideology.
“What I am getting at is how on earth can fracking US NG, liquefying it, and transporting it to new infrastructure facilities and then by ship to another continent (which also has to build entirely new port facilities) EVER be price competitive with Russia’s natural gas product using pipelines to Europe?”
The same way oil pumped in Saudia Arabia is transported to the coast, shipped to Houston, refined and then shipped to a gas station in North Carolina…at ever decreasing costs.
Just like oil, there is developing a LNG global market where what is fracked in Southern Penn, or Australia is entered into an exchange and priced according to demand. Hamburg needs so many million metric cubes of LNG, they buy it on that market and if the price is right, the ship docks. Doesn’t matter where it comes from. Like some oil tankers, they may be hovering off the coast…waiting for the price to go up a couple of pennies.
But like oil, this exposes the global shipment component of this exchange to naval warfare, which is where I see the danger if Putin is pushed into a corner over multiple issues. Which is why there has to be a concerted push to get his buddies to visit his country dacha with either a message or more lethal intent.
R
It can’t. Therefore politics must be used to make it the only option. I don’t trust Putin’s intent any more than Stalin’s. he’s already used the gas trade as a weapon.
Can’t trust the US gas producers and their bought
prostitutespoliticians in both parties, either.Struck out original as unkind to sex workers to compare them to DC politicians.
Fracking has gotten much cheaper as a result of experience with it. This is very common with new and developing technologies.
True, but given technological equivalence, piping gas from Russia to Europe will always be cheaper than shipping it from the USA.
I wouldnt think price is the determining factor.
The risk of unreliable suppliers needs to be included in the cost analysis of any product thats vital.
And europe has experience with how unreliable it can be.So independence from russian gas would be great, renewables will possibly do it in the end, but until then we cant go without our convenient gas.
Redundancy is worth a lot in an uncertain situation.
While transportation costs from Russia may always be cheaper, not necessarily production, administrative and graft costs. How much is Putin and pals skimming off the top? The inefficiency costs of corrupt oligarchies are a substantial surtax and can’t be reduced by normal business practices.
If the article is correct, the difference between US LNG and Russian piped gas is only 20% in a very immature market. As that market matures and efficiencies increase, that margin will slip. To maintain market share, Rus Gas will be discounted, but they can’t cut payments to PutinCo., so development will be cut, labor cut, etc…. increasing their costs of production and thinning out their profits more. After a while, it may no longer be profitable and require greater state subsidy to keep their political leverage over portions of Europe. That money has to come from somewhere, and Russian population may be the source. They may end up paying more for Rus Nat Gas/Heating than Poles or Germans…a very dangerous political situation for authoritarians.
R
20% is huge!
It would be huge if foreign LNG had been fully capitalized and the distribution system running at speed. As we are at the beginning chapters of that story, 20% difference is pretty good. That will decrease in time. RusGas will cut their prices. The only question how low and how long can they cut before eating into the oligarch’s profits.
If they can’t go lower then the economies of scale for the LNG export/import business will narrow the margin.
R
“coal + environmental costs < natural gas + environmental costs.”
Those same conditions will make renewables such as wind and solar more attractive, too. Of course, that only works for electricity, but electricity is the main use for coal. Gas is much more flexible in its end uses.
Gas, for example, not just oil, is a major source of feedstock for making plastics.
http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=34&t=6
Can coal also be used to make plastics? Honeywell proudly says “Yes!”
http://www.honeywell.com/newsroom/news/2016/07/china-turns-coal-into-plastic-with-honeywell-technology
What that glowing review doesn’t mention is that “The problem is that coal is not a very clean raw material or safe for workers…. Using coal as a feedstock for China’s plastics industry contributes to other pollution as well.” That’s the teaser quote Google showed (keywords: “plastic feedstock coal”) from an article that requires a subscription to read in full: www.plasticsnews.com/article/20100625/…/coal-as-feedstock-challenges-china
Renewables are taking over in portion of electric generation, but there is an issue. The Grid does not store electricity so if demand rises or there are clouds over Ariz.. fossil plants must be turned on to make up the deficit. Right now, the race is on to find effective storage. Battery, mechanical, etc…
Essentially, the whole Grid has to be rethought and rebuilt to take full advantage of renewable energy.
Right now a major market for much of coal is steel/metal production. Exports to such plants is fueling the current “boomlet”
R
And US gas is fracked gas with politically pushed-through pipelines to take it to export. The fossil fuel industry wants to take their lower profits now than leave it in the ground. And oil fields still flare natural gas.
NG transportation is becoming a priority, as evidenced by the push in pipelines through WV/VA. Don’t know about the Midwest fields.
I was under the impression that the current overproduction was because Saudi-Arabia and Iran raised production before OPEC started to talk about freezing the oil production. Apparently they chose to avoid getting less income to not cause economic turmoil, which would make it harder to keep a grip on power.
So if it was geopolitical power games against russia, Iran was working with it. But it seems likely it was selfish interest instead, Iran and Saudis took the quick money, i can imagine since they are the main rivals in the middle east they both couldnt lose market share relative to each other.
But admittedly i have very little understanding of what plays really are going on in the middle east, even people with 100 times the knowlege seem to have a hard time to figure it all out.
I say over production by Opec has a geopolitical component. The other issue is that the last time they tried to cut production, other non-OPEC producers stepped in and stole market share. Once gone, hard to get back; which is why they have been pumping while the price drops. The Saudis have been playing the “buy up the fields and oil services companies” game in the US so they can have some influence on US oil production. Particularly the Dakotas.
When all you can offer the world in foreign trade is Oil, and all your friends drive Mercedes, you need some type of commodity to use in exchange for that big black limo….and the guns your guards carry.
R
IIRC, Saudi Arabia has a small population over an ocean of oil and Iran has a larger population with a lot less oil which is why they want to develop nuclear power. Granted, a bomb is icing on the cake. They also have other income sources like Apricot production. Saudi’s only have oil, sand, and religious fanatics.