Il suicidio del fracking

[paulhowe]

La loro economia sostenuta da derivati, immondizia e stampa di dollari a dismisura prima o poi presentera' il conto, e, disperati come sono stanno cercando il pretesto per una bella guerra ed un piano marshall del XXI secolo!

E si "dai derivati" !! Mica da questi.

[Amati75]

E' chiaramente una bufala!
Una pipeline negli states costa una cippa tanta, mica e' l'itaglia con gli appennini e densita abitativa elevata...e frane.....
Quindi pensare di costruire navi gasiere, terminal e tutto il resto per esportare gas in europa ha piu' del D day che un'operazione meramente commerciale!
Non sanno a cosa attaccarsi! La loro economia sostenuta da derivati, immondizia e stampa di dollari a dismisura prima o poi presentera' il conto, e, disperati come sono stanno cercando il pretesto per una bella guerra ed un piano marshall del XXI secolo!

Ahaha che idiozia... Oggi è in vena, una dietro l altra.... Fortuna che era "consulente"...

Per sua info, il settore finanza ed assicurazioni pesa per il 7.25% del PIL USA...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Amati75]

E si "dai derivati" !! Mica da questi.

Devono cercare di attaccarsi a qualcosa, si sentono meglio visto che nei fatti e' fin troppo facile prenderli per i fondelli per via delle loro affermazioni fattualmente errate e la loro conoscenza da cartolina sugli USA.

Ho sempre sostenuto che al presente l ignoranza e' una scelta, si vede ce per alcuni è' una costante.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[animal]

..........................ed il terziario pesa il 75% del Pil U$A!

economia di carta pesta destinata a soccombere in un decennio a meno che.......

[animal]

Devono cercare di attaccarsi a qualcosa, si sentono meglio visto che nei fatti e' fin troppo facile prenderli per i fondelli per via delle loro affermazioni fattualmente errate e la loro conoscenza da cartolina sugli USA.

Ho sempre sostenuto che al presente l ignoranza e' una scelta, si vede ce per alcuni è' una costante.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

suvvia.....smaltisca l'effetto del dopo barbecue e si metta in ricarica da bravo. In passato l'ho portata all'esaurimento tanto da farla sproloquiare e scendere ad un livello triviale da osteria tanto da rischiare di essere bannato.
Non mi piace vedere un caballeros che trascende e da sussuegoso forumista provocatore trasformarsi in scaricatore da porto.
Magari lo e'!!!!!Vero pasta Amati che tiene la cottura!!!

[Amati75]

suvvia.....smaltisca l'effetto del dopo barbecue e si metta in ricarica da bravo. In passato l'ho portata all'esaurimento tanto da farla sproloquiare e scendere ad un livello triviale da osteria tanto da rischiare di essere bannato.
Non mi piace vedere un caballeros che trascende e da sussuegoso forumista provocatore trasformarsi in scaricatore da porto.
Magari lo e'!!!!!Vero pasta Amati che tiene la cottura!!!

Bellissimo arrampicamento di specchi.... via "consulente" (che bugiardo...) che lo sparar balle le andrà' bene al bar...

[Amati75]

..........................ed il terziario pesa il 75% del Pil U$A!

economia di carta pesta destinata a soccombere in un decennio a meno che.......

Si limiti a parlare di come trovare olio sotto la macchina va... che evita di sparare balle a iosa.

[animal]

Bellissimo arrampicamento di specchi.... via "consulente" (che bugiardo...) che lo sparar balle le andrà' bene al bar...

io magari ci vado al bar per un camparino, ma lei ogni notte sparisce come un Cenerentolo....la ricarica deve essere lunga e ben programmata vero??

[animal]

Chissa' se amatino sara', al suo risveglio, piu' interessato all'articolo o all'articolista!!!


The U.S. Cannot Compete With Russia In Europe's Natural Gas Market


Kenneth Rapoza ,


Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.





Will the U.S. be able to compete with Russian natural gas in the lucrative European gas market? For those who think that Washington’s support of Ukraine is about energy, this may warrant another look. The U.S. is far from ever becoming a major supplier.

I used to think that the U.S. was positioning itself to be a big supplier of liquefied natural gas to the European Union. And with that came the lobbying against Russia’s Gazprom in its core market.
The notion was that the Washington could use the budding anti-Russia sentiment that was kick-started by the year-long Ukraine crisis to position the U.S. as an alternative energy source for Europe.
The truth is that the only way the U.S. will be a big supplier is if a U.S. company, based in Europe or Eurasia, is using hydrocarbons it has rights to abroad.
In other words, the U.S. natural gas market will be — not surprisingly — hyper local. U.S. companies may become players in Europe, but if it wants to rival Gazprom then it will have to source that gas from someplace else.

Gazprom will naturally lose some of its market share in Europe over time. Such is the ebb and flow of a free market. But it won’t be at the expense of Washington policy makers, or the Gulf of Mexico.
This Corpus Christie LNG facility has contracts to ship liquefied natural gas to Europe. It’s the only one.


There is only one way domestically produced gas can get to Europe and of course that is by LNG tanker. The U.S. is building up LNG port terminals.

There are currently four LNG export terminals under construction, with an additional one scheduled to start shortly.



The bulk of them are in the energy rich Gulf Coast. One is in Washington’s backyard — in Maryland. Most of the capacity for these five terminals has been contracted to identified buyers already, some of which is not dedicated and will likely sell on the open market to the highest bidder. Others have destination specific contracts. The contract holders are a matter of public record, and most of the export facilities have their “sales and purchase agreements” on their project websites. Of the five terminals under construction, only Corpus Christi has signed contracts targeted for Europe.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, that terminal will ship the equivalent of around 700 million cubic feet per day to Europe. (una cippa tanta di gas equivalente a 20 milioni m3/giorno, praticamente l'erogazione di un medio giacimentino italiano)

Bigger contracts have been signed with India (1.8 billion cubic feet daily) and Japan (2.2 bcf/d).

Even though U.S. energy firms are building for future exports, Europe does not appear high on the list.
More than 30 projects totaling 40 bcf/d in export capacity have been proposed in the U.S. but have not yet been approved, so for now these are pipe dreams. If they became reality, they would account for more than the current global liquefaction capacity, which was 39 bcf/d in 2013, according to data from IHS Energy. Global LNG trade amounted to 32 bcf/d.
Washington is more interested in lowering U.S. dependence on foreign fuels than it is interested in helping the E.U. diversify away from its main foreign source of fuel, which happens to be Russia.

American natural gas will be for Americans.
Gazprom, meanwhile, might go from 30% of the European Union’s current foreign supply to 25% or even 20%. Some of that might be replaced by the U.S. But the real competitors are the European Arctic Circle producers who, for the most part, have good relations with the Russians.
For those of us who like to think that wars in foreign lands are due to oil and gas dealings…if Washington plans on kicking Russia to the curb in its own backyard, it has a lot of work to do. And a long way to go to achieve it.

[animal]

un altro interessante ed Illuminante articolo per il caballeros dormiente in perenne ricarica che sfata il mito, recentemente riproposto su TP , dell'invasione del gas americano in europa.......
Dopo lo scassamento di maroni della rivoluzione (abortita) del fracking, che ci aspettera' ancora un anno di scassamento sull LNG export????


U.S. LNG Exports No Panacea for Europe, Report Finds






per evitare di leggere tutto l'articolo, la figura riassume i casi previsti per un export di LNG ameriCano di 9 sino a 18 miliardi piedi cubi al giorno. Come si vede il gas russo rimarra' sempre e comunque predominante. Bye bye ameriga


U.S. exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) will strengthen Europe's bargaining position with Russia and help create a more diverse global gas market, but they won't solve the current crisis in Ukraine or free Europe from Russian gas, and they are unlikely to cause the Kremlin to change its foreign policy, according to Columbia University's Center on Global Energy Policy.
In a 60-page report, researchers Jason Bordoff and Trevor Houser predict U.S. LNG exports will boost Europe's bargaining position with Russia, leading to contract renegotiations and ultimately lower natural gas prices. To support their prediction, they pointed to the effects of the U.S. shale gas boom -- specifically, an expanded global gas supply that helps European consumers and hurts Russian producers, as LNG shipments previously destined for the U.S. are diverted elsewhere.
"The U.S. natural gas revolution has already undermined the profits of Russian producers and benefitted European consumers," Bordoff and Houser said. "The displacement of 9.4 Bcf/d of LNG supply that resulted from the U.S. shale boom coincided with a period of sharply reduced European gas demand, due to the great recession in 2009 and the subsequent Euro crisis from 2010. Oil prices rebounded quickly following the crisis, but natural gas prices in Europe remained low, due in large part to this additional supply of LNG."
The researchers added that the divergence between oil-indexed and spot natural gas prices "put considerable pressure" on Europe's gas suppliers, especially Russia's OAO Gazprom, which was initially reluctant to renegotiate contracts but eventually granted big discounts by linking a small percentage of the contracted volumes to hub prices.
Gazprom could also get pinched by the European Commission, which launched an antitrust probe against the company in 2012. A ruling against Gazprom could further weaken its market position in Europe by requiring it "to eliminate any remaining destination restrictions, or possibly even to replace oil-indexation with hub-based pricing formulas in all of its long-term supply contracts. The antitrust case may also result in substantial fines of up to 10% of the company's annual revenues in the markets in question."
According to the researchers, Morgan Stanley estimated that Gazprom could be fined as much as $1.7 billion. But they added that the company would likely appeal an adverse ruling to the European Court of Justice, which would delay a final ruling for several years.
Bordoff and Houser said U.S. LNG export terminals would operate "under a fundamentally different business model" than liquefaction terminals anywhere else in the world, with contract terms that may create flexibility and liquidity in the global marketplace. "The advent of U.S. tolling-type contracts may provide the global LNG market with more liquidity and buyers with more flexibility than the historic alternatives, and shift the balance of power from gas producers to consumer," they said.
"Despite challenges with U.S. LNG exports, it is entirely possible that additional export capacity could get approved and built, and that total U.S. LNG exports could exceed the volumes already approved, or even potentially the 14.5 bcf/d Russia currently sells to members of the European Union."
But the researchers warned that even if the U.S. proceeds with LNG exports, they would be years away and would not hit the marketplace soon enough to affect the current geopolitical crisis in Ukraine. Also complicating matters is the fact that European LNG infrastructure won't allow imports to replace Russian gas in Eastern and Central Europe.
"European LNG regasification capacity is theoretically sufficient to displace all Russian imports with LNG, but all currently operational LNG import terminals are located in Western and Southern Europe," they said. "Central and Eastern European countries are only now beginning to develop LNG import terminals in the Baltic Sea region."
Under a model that envisions 9 Bcf/d of U.S. LNG exports to Europe, Russia would still supply 47.7% of Europe's natural gas. Even if the exports were doubled to 18 Bcf/d, Russia's stake wouldn't budge much (44.7%).
Europe is tied to Russian gas because "it is relatively cheap and will likely remain competitive in the European market for the foreseeable future...While Europe has the physical ability over the long-term to replace all the gas it currently buys from Russia, such a move would require significant political intervention and is highly unlikely to occur only on commercial grounds.
"Gazprom appears to be sensitive to such political risk, and in its recent cutoff of supplies to Ukraine is walking a fine line between trying to exert its energy leverage without undermining its reputation as a reliable supplier."
The researchers added that Europe will still be under the yoke of Russian gas imports for several years because they signed long-term gas contracts that are difficult to get out of. "Such obligations will continue to require Gazprom's customers in OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development] Europe to take delivery of at least 10 Bcf/d of Russian gas in 2020, and more than 9 Bcf/d until 2027," they said.
Although oil and gas exports are both vital to the Russian economy, the country makes more revenue exporting oil than gas. In 2013, the country exported $356 billion in oil and gas, including $283 billion in oil and less than $73 billion on gas. The latter figure included $54 billion from European pipeline gas exports.
"Going forward, it is possible that natural gas's share of Russia's energy export revenue may rise as Moscow implements various tax reforms to encourage greater investment in its oil sector, particularly unconventional production, which could reduce the share of oil rents captured by the state," the researchers said. "Expanded sanctions, if they continue to target oil rather than gas production, may have a similar effect."
They added that while U.S. LNG exports could force Gazprom to lower its gas prices to Europe to stay competitive, "the total economic impact on state coffers is unlikely to be significant enough to prompt a change in Moscow's foreign policy, particularly in the next few years."
As of August, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has given conditional or final approval for seven projects to collectively export 10.52 Bcf/d of LNG to non-free trade agreement (FTA) countries (see Daily GPI, Aug. 14). The DOE also changed the process for reviewing applications to export LNG to non-FTA countries, beginning the final review once the project has completed the environmental review process at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. An additional 27 Bcf/d of export capacity is still awaiting approval.