European energy situation

[aja8888]

Back on Europe energy situation, China will have no problem buying all the nat gas that Russia has to sell.

Siberia has a lot of nat gas production. There's a project called Power of Siberia to build a natural gas pipeline to take it to China.

Yes-sir, they are doing it in a BIG WAY in Russia and China.

 

[Car-Guy]

^^^^^
I wonder how much money American oil companies sunk (lost) building all the infrastructure in places like Sakhalin? (For an example)

 

[ls99]

Who in Congress would dare to suggest we send COAL to Europe!? The green dream is crashing up against energy/technical realities, yet I have green friends who still believe that $12 heating oil this winter is the only way to accelerate the transformation.

I vaguely remember that in the seventies US Military bases in Germany were required to use American Anthracite coal shipped to each base...
Can't remember if the objective was coal subsidy or environmental concern about the crappy German coal.

 

[NW-Bound]

Europe is already in line for natural gas ahead of Asia and South America.

The following is from DW, a German news company, dated Aug 1, 2022:

European demand has kicked the US LNG industry into high gear, but its capacity is too low and the climate is being caught in the crossfire.

As Europe weans itself off Russian energy as punishment for Moscow's invasion of Ukraine, the continent's demand for liquefied natural gas (LNG) has soared to unprecedented levels.

The US is now the world's largest exporter of natural gas, yet political, economic and technical limits prevent the country from being its full-on savior. While the industry is booming, lacking export capacity is bottlenecking supply to Europe and the rest of the world.

Meanwhile, climate groups insist the LNG export boom is a destructive way to deal with the energy crisis, and other paths are available to ensure global climate goals are met...

To meet Europe's natural gas demand, the US has solidified its spot as the world's largest LNG exporter in the first half of 2022, according to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA).

The country's average daily export surged 12% in the past six months to 11.2 billion cubic feet (bcf) per day.

Displacing Asia as the top importer of US LNG, the UK and EU received 71% of those exports — and are paying a premium. Poorer nations like Brazil or Bangladesh haven't been able to compete with Europe at current cargo prices. Some exporters have even broken contracts with poor countries to reroute fuel to Europe, reaping higher profits despite penalties...

While President Joe Biden promised in March to export more LNG to Europe, the industry is already maxed out. Additionally, due to reliance on pipelines from Russia, much of Europe lacks sufficient import infrastructure even if America could export more LNG.

From Bloomberg, also dated Aug 1, 2022.

Munich plans to burn more oil and coal instead of natural gas as part of Germany’s efforts to counter Russia’s moves to squeeze deliveries of the fuel to Europe.

Stadtwerke Muenchen, the Bavarian city’s local utility, has revived oil burners at two heating plants that were previously shut. It also postponed the planned conversion of a power-generation block to gas from coal.

 

[ncbill]

The europeans have mis-managed their strategic situation for a couple of generations on both energy and the military. They are now scrambling to find tactical solutions to strategic problems that will take a generation to sort out.

When WWII started it took years for both the UK and the US to rearm. The lack of military manufacturing infrastructure weighed very much on the minds of both Churchill and Roosevelt as they formulated their plans. Both knew that even if their countries were fully mobilized it would take years to build the necessary infrastructure. When we hear about building a bomber in an hour or a Liberty boat in four days, that was the end product of years of manic infrastructure development. As a result, the allied plans by necessity included waiting years to retake Europe and to put the Pacific on the back-burner, even though that meant all those occupied and besieged countries could not be liberated during those years. Meanwhile Russia was taking it on the chin because Hitler's western flank was relatively secure. Stalin was constantly agitating for the allies to move in the west in order to take the pressure off of Russia, but Churchill and Roosevelt stood fast and were unwilling to commit to a major engagement until the military was actually ready.

The European energy problem cannot be assuaged by rowing the boat real hard for six months. They are in for a rough road and Putin will have significant leverage for several years.

My $0.02.

Yep, let them eat cake.

Germany was warned starting back in Reagan's first term not to get so dependent on Russia for energy...literally FORTY years ago.

France showed what you can do with nuclear...nuclear power going from zero to providing 70% of their electricity needs in only around 15 years (1973-1988)

Of course, there's no technical reason the Germans can't gasify their massive coal reserves.

 

[Music Lover]

Every time I see the phrase "climate crisis" I automatically assume that it has nothing to do with climate and everything to do with policy.

 

[Bamaman]

I'm afraid the "medical" lobby in the US is far to strong now to let that happen.

Many don't realize that there are 250,000 people in Metro Nashville area that are employed in the healthcare field. It's home to the giant HCA who not only is a huge hospital chain but they also manage healthcare systems worldwide.

Americans are managing the healthcare of many nations, some in Europe, out of Nashville. And there's an incredible number of foreign management people living there.

 

[NW-Bound]

You have to be rich now to be able to afford natural gas. Even coal is now hard to get.

See: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/02/coa...ted-to-return-to-2013s-record-levels-iea.html.

 

[Chuckanut]

I don't mean to sound like a wise guy, but is natural gas really worse for the Earth's environment than another big war? I would think war would be a far more damaging to our environment that using natural gas for another 20 - 30 years.

Ivan!, have you cleared that bomb with the RosEPA?

Pile, you idiot! That artillery shell did not pass the environmental review. You can only shoot it 8 miles, not 12!!

 

[SecondAttempt]

The European energy shortage is a choice, not a crisis for the world to pay for.

Europe is rich enough to pay for the problem. I was not suggesting we provide aid. I'm not even suggesting the US take a lead role. I'm suggesting the world solve the logistics problem. In fact I think it should probably be a Europe-led effort.

I realize that a coal mine can't be reopened overnight, especially without miners. But there are plenty that are winding down and that can be delayed.

Germany has the Nordstream II terminal. I know it is not the same as a LNG ship terminal but I suspect conversion is possible.

All I am really saying is that when the Soviets tried to blockade Berlin, an impressive operation was started in just a few weeks. Granted, we were mostly still built up from the war.

I believe Germany is already slowing down their shutdown of nuclear reactors. France is building more.

I haven't run any numbers (but I probably will) but it seems like 6 months into a war that shows no signs of ending anytime soon, we (the world) should be thinking of how to keep Europe warm for a few years.

 

[RobLJ]

I have watched the issue of replacing Russia's gas supply to Europe (about 44%) since February with interest. It obviously is not easy to replace more than 40% of your supply with a flip of a coin.

Equinor (which already supplies 20% of European gas) has taken steps to boost its production from the North Sea, as well as opening a LNG plant that was down due to fire. Poland signed an agreement with Kazakestan to supply its pipeline which supplies Eastern Europe. These are intended as partial replacements for Nordstrom I, which Russia has shut down, the source of most Russian gas (Nordstrom II was about to open at the point Russia invaded Ukraine). I own Equinor stock, so I have been curious about their plans since the Ukraine invasion. Europe has led in off shore wind development and is rapidly accelerating (China is trying to catch up rapidly), but like many of these projects, development time is 1-3 years, unless they can accelerate existing projects (getting the turbines and blades, as well as the ships necessary to do off-shore installation is the constraint, as is the case in the US, as well as the permitting issue which is less of an issue in Europe).

Further, as some one posted, the US West Coast LNG plant is about to open, and Canada is also building an LNG plant in West Canada although I don't think this will be operable until 2023 (at earliest; check on the timing since it may be 2024 or even later). Germany is reopening some coal plants temporarily, as well as probably will recommission a couple of nuke plants. There is a huge gas field off Cyprus whose expansion may be accelerated but I think that will take another 2-4 years at best. And Europe is going full bore on heat pump technology to replace natural gas furnaces, although this replacement will probably take 7-10 years to completely reconfigure European heating (Norway and the Nordic countries have already done a great deal of heat pump conversion). A big part of German gas consumption is for home heating.

Interestingly the new Climate Bill, if passed, provides rebates to accelerate a similar conversion in the US. At least 3 houses in my 60 home subdivision have had to replace ACs this summer (of which I am aware since I saw the installers and boxes), so I'm researching the inevitable replacement of my unit with a cold-climate heat pump and doing away with the natty gas furnace. I would have to replace the electrical box to do an electric hot water heater, given the need for a new 240 circuit with no room in the existing box, so that probably will remain natty gas.

 

[RobLJ]

Here's a recent NYT article on Germany (I used one of my free links).


https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/29/...zP0wf75GHiJmoObT-Kv5RN-A3UgB7w&smid=url-share


Another on Norway/Equinor:
https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/i...-despair-natural-gas-norway-boosts-production

 

[GaryInCO]

So my question is, why are we (as in the civilized world not just the US) not comtemplating a "Berlin airlift" to supply Europe with fuel, natural gas, and coal?

We basically have. According to a study by the Yale School of Business, as of June '22 the US has nearly tripled its LNG exports to the EU. The EU now uses more US LNG than Russian piped gas. See slide #13 at https://yale.app.box.com/s/7f6agg5ezscj234kahx35lil04udqgeo
(Complete paper at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4167193)

China is happy to buy Russia's gas. But they have Russia over a barrel, and they're buying it at an unprecedented 35% discount. (Slide 18)

I'm all for green goals, but you have to do it sensibly. Germany and the EU were incredibly stupid to mothball nukes &etc without a reliable replacement in place. They should have known Russia is not a reliable source.

 

[Svensk Anga]

Forget sending fuel. Send experts in fracking. Europe needs to get busy developing their own resources. This is not just a one winter issue.

 

[aja8888]

Forget sending fuel. Send experts in fracking. Europe needs to get busy developing their own resources. This is not just a one winter issue.

Good thought, and they have the talent there already as the North Sea has been developed (declining now). But they really don't have much in the way of other offshore or onshore proven reserves. That's why they have to import gas and oil.

 

[ERD50]

from your article:

Meanwhile, climate groups insist the LNG export boom is a destructive way to deal with the energy crisis, and other paths are available to ensure global climate goals are met....

do they spell those out? Ahhh, this looks like the article...

https://www.dw.com/en/why-us-gas-cant-solve-europes-energy-crisis/a-62643955

And their "solution"?

Schneider insisted that Europe could seek a cleaner route to energy security, by investing more heavily in renewable energy, for example.

Oh, OK. Just "invest more heavily in renewable energy". Easy.

-ERD50

 

[Sconie]

Perhaps the US can help Europe with their energy cost issues, and they can help us with our medical care cost issues?

Having lived in both Europe and the U.S., if faced with a serious health issue, I would much rather receive treatment in the States than any of the countries of Europe.

 

[NW-Bound]

Forget sending fuel. Send experts in fracking. Europe needs to get busy developing their own resources. This is not just a one winter issue.

Good thought, and they have the talent there already as the North Sea has been developed (declining now). But they really don't have much in the way of other offshore or onshore proven reserves. That's why they have to import gas and oil.

I have little knowledge about oil exploration, so have to ask this.

I thought that fracking allows you to extract more oil from depleted oil fields.

But if there's no oil where you are, how does fracking help?

 

[aja8888]

I have little knowledge about oil exploration, so have to ask this.

I thought that fracking allows you to extract more oil from depleted oil fields.

But if there's no oil where you are, how does fracking help?

Let me explain (with some detail, not thorough though):

Fraccing is done to fracture the oil bearing formation to release bound up oil (oil in rock). Fraccing has been used in this manner since the early 1900's in this country. I have reviewed actual well logs from the 1920's and high pressure water was in use then.

Typically, high pressure water was used for fraccing , and chemicals were used in later years. Now, it's a mix of sand, diesel fuel and some other non-hazardous chemicals.

When shale formations were viewed as a source of additional hydrocarbons, no technioque was successful in releasing the oil/gas from the hard rock. Later (mid - 2000's), Mitchell Energy developed a procedure to "frac" the shale and was successful.
Think horizontal wells with long laterals, like a mile.


From that mmoment on, the term Fraccing was attached to ANY oil/gas development by people who just reported this stuff.

Getting additional oil out of depleted fields is a whole different topic. Think secondary recovery, steam injection, etc.

If there is no oil where you are, you go fishing!

 

[WWDog]

Weren't we energy independent just a few years ago before we shut down the pipeline from Alaska?

 

[RobbieB]

Workin' in a coal mine goin' down down...

 

[aja8888]

Weren't we energy independent just a few years ago before we shut down the pipeline from Alaska?

Define "energy Independent" (we still import 1/2 of our crude oil needs, and export some crude and refined products too!)


BP's Alaska pipeline is still active and has been since the late 1970's. It's design life was 30 years. It still sends ~700,000 barrels per day of crude down this way.

 

[RobLJ]

The US is the largest producer of oil and natural gas and the largest exporter of LNG.

We export a great deal of refined petroleum (prices are higher externally) while importing crude petroleum (US refiners generally make more exporting despite the shipping costs).


https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/imports-and-exports.php


In essence we are energy independent, but refiners make more exporting. The heavy bituminous crude in the Keystone pipeline was largely meant for refiners in Texas for refined export (a little fact often glossed over).

 

[RobLJ]

Here is the production (barrels per day) in 2022 (US leads again); these are for 2021 but I think US leads again in 2022:


https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/oil-production-by-country

 

[NW-Bound]

It's surprising that the US produces so much oil and gas. I don't know if that is good, because our reserves are not that great. It's 2.1% of the world's reserves for oil, and 5.3% for gas. The faster you pump, the sooner you run out.

Number 1 for oil reserves is Venezuela with 18.2% of the world's total reserves. Number 2 in oil is Saudi Arabia at 16.2%.

Number 1 for natural gas reserves is Russia at 24.3%, and number 2 is Iran at 17.3%.

Western Europe is poor in oil and gas. Norway has a bit of oil (0.31%), and gas (1%). Of Continental Europe, only the Netherlands has a bit of gas, good for another 18 years for its domestic consumption.

As I suspected, fracking would not do Europe any good. Or perhaps there's oil and gas but they don't bother to go look. I kind of doubt that though.

Sources: https://www.worldometers.info/gas/gas-reserves-by-country/, https://www.worldometers.info/oil/oil-reserves-by-country/, https://www.worldometers.info/gas/n...28 trillion,18.1 times its annual consumption.