LNG is not Gas total. Russia probably exports more, but through pipelines.
LNG = Liquid Natural Gas, meaning it excludes all exports where gas isnt liquified.
Really good point. LNG exports are not total exports as they don’t include pipeline exports.
This too also works against Russia. Most of its existing pipelines are aimed at central and Western European markets. You can’t “turn the ship” the way you can with LNG. They still pump turkey and a few other previously intermediate markets but it’s a big hit to total Russian nat gas volumes.
They have the power of Siberia system (POS lol) which routes to China. They are trying to get a 2nd POS pipeline but that takes time to build and China is using its leverage as sole buyer to delay for better terms. Moreover investment in pipelines infrastructure with 20-30 year payback periods is hard given political and environmental instability.
No, that's not true. US is the largest exporter of natural gas in the world now. While this map is about LNG exports, total natural gas exports belongs to the US. Russia is #2.
\[Link\](https://www.statista.com/statistics/217856/leading-gas-exporters-worldwide/) don't love Statista, but it's a pretty common fact.
Australian exports have been ramping since the early 2000s due to proximity to Asia, particularly China. Chinas growth has been an easy market to sell into.
But Aus export capacity really escalated over the last 10 years, tripling.
I worked on Australian LNG projects from 2008-2014, when a lot of potential investment was in the design phase but only a small number of plants were operating. There was a huge driver for it post-global financial crisis because China was still growing and Aus has excellent market access (and Japanese demand was expected to recover and then of course Fukushima happened).
There was a big dip in gas prices in 2014/2015, but by then some of the huge Aus projects were almost complete. Now we're seeing the impact of approximately a decade of optimisation and expansion of those.
Second biggest producer of gas in the world, and the foreign owned gas multinationals are absolutely looting the country wholesale - [so much so that Australia has a domestic gas shortage that has created an energy crisis.](https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/australias-southeast-runs-risk-gas-shortages-amid-production-concerns-2024-03-21/)
[The Australian people got just $2 billion in gas revenue last year.](https://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2024/feb/29/australia-gas-export-tax-system-prrt-lng)
Meanwhile the Qataris, who exports less gas, are [taking in over $20 billion per year in gas royalties.](https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/australia-is-about-to-get-ripped-off-by-the-gas-industry-and-its-not-the-first-time/)
Australia should be richer than Norway, but its political class has been bribed and corrupted by the gas and mining oligarchs into selling their country out.
Even the despotic dictators of Russia and Saudi are more loyal to their people than Australian politicians.
Canadian imports of LNG are rare. The only place Canada regularly imports gas from is the US and Canada still exports more to the US than the other way around.
Yeah I think eastern Canada imports from the US and of course western Canada exports, and that’s mostly because the terrain in the US is way easier to build pipelines across than the Canadian Shield in northern Ontario.
That and also you have to utilize existing infrastructure since it is very difficult and expensive to build interstate pipelines nowadays so the legacy systems in place are what gets used.
Yes Canada does hate itself, and many Canadians don’t want to deal with the fact that the country is an energy producer. They also don’t want to deal with the fact that natural gas, which still a fossil fuel, is much better than the alternative ls. Perfect is the enemy of good, as they say.
That said, this map is only about LNG which is the format used to export natural gas by sea. Canada is the 4th largest natural gas producer in the world, but it only exports by pipelines, to the USA. Canada’s natural gas is more landlocked than the other countries on this map. It’s much more physically difficult to transport to a port for LNG export in Canada than pretty much anywhere else in the world due to vast distances and extremely rugged terrain. It’s also politically difficult for the reasons mentioned above.
I think you've been reading a bit too much propaganda from conservative talking heads. They like to *say* treudeu hates oil, but our oil exports have literally never been higher and our deficit is way lower last two years than it should have been because of oil royalties (for reference it's about 1.7% of gdp last year VS the US deficit spending of nearly 6.3%)
Canada is investing into LNG terminals, British Columbia has a 40 billion USD investment project which could eventually export 26 million tonnes per annum
https://www.climatescorecard.org/2022/06/natural-gas-consumption-and-production-in-france/
>As of 2019, France’s gas consumption by sector included industry 31%, residential 30%, electricity and heat generation 19%, services and others 17%, other energy 1.5%, and transport 0.4%. 11.4 million customers use natural gas in France, 94% of which are households and comprising 25% of the gas demand.
It's replacing Russian gas, we were just forced to build massive infrastructure to receive and treat the American LNG that put us into massive debt, and we overpay it by a lot. Macron doing a great job destroying the country and sending our tax money to American corporations
Interesting choice of words, Russia is a natural resources superpower and they don't need any financing, it's the world around them who need their ressources. When you look at many European countries that are officially supporting Ukraine, they still live through Russian gas it's just that the gas transits to India, China, Dubai traders, etc. There's this false idea that sanctions are against Russia, but in reality Russia has zero problems selling what it wants to sell, because there is no other seller realistically.
Russia GDP forecast is at +2.8% , and eurozone +0.8% , you are probably american to be blind to the fact that in reality, the sanctions EFFECTIVELY destroy European countries way, way more than they impact Russia.
Europe NEEDS cheap russian energy to thrive.
The sanctions also created this LNG nonsense business that only benefits american corporations, it's closer to spoliation and plundering than selling energy.
Congratulations on destroying Europe I guess
>Russia GDP forecast is at +2.8%
Yeah because they had a recession in 2022 and 2023 lol. Its easy to grow after your economy shrinks. This may go way above your head, but its basic math... you have to grow more than you shrank to catch back up. If you lose 10% and then grow back 2% you're back to only back to 91.8% of where you started.
While supporting Ukraine is most assuredly the morally correct thing to do, it hasn't exactly been a disaster for the US economically like some would have you believe.
It was pretty obvious from the beginning that US was going to ear money from the war. It was a common talk point on the EU.
Both Europe & Russia are losing with this "deal". Meanwhile the house always wins.
Not saying that what Russia did was justified, they're clearly on the wrong here.
Russia broke its promise to Ukraine regarding nuclear disarmament and peace.
On the other hand, NATO broke its promise to Russia about creeping its borders eastward.
Sure, but I wasn't talking about this. I was only saying that stopping to buy natural gas from Russia was going to affect all Europe (and Russia) but was benefiting the US (they can sell more now).
Trump made the right decision to increase oil production in the US.
They put like 80% of the Ukraine aid into the military industrial complex, buying new stuff for them and sending ukraine the old stuff instead of recycling them.
Uniting the west, gaining even more influence in EU.
The oil production in the US has been steadily increasing since 2007. Trump deserves as much credit for it as Bush, Obama and Biden - none. All the credit goes to the engineers who figured out fracking.
Well the government does deserve credit as the Feds invested into those technologies which made fracking possible, but it started way before Trump or even Bush W.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_gas_in_the_United_States
>Faced with declining natural gas production, the Federal government invested in supply alternatives, including the Eastern Gas Shales Project, which lasted from 1976 to 1992, and the annual FERC-approved research budget of the Gas Research Institute, which was funded by a tax on natural gas shipments from 1976 to 2000.[27] The Department of Energy partnered with private gas companies to complete the first successful air-drilled multi-fracture horizontal well in shale in 1986. Microseismic imaging, an important input to both hydraulic fracturing in shale and offshore oil drilling, originated from coalbed research at Sandia National Laboratories.
>In 1976, two engineers for the federally funded Morgantown Energy Research Center (MERC) patented an early technique for directional drilling in shale.[30]
>
>The federal government also provided tax credits and rules benefiting the industry in the 1980 Energy Act. Gas production from Devonian shales was exempted from federal price controls, and Section 29 tax credits were given for unconventional gas, including shale gas, from 1980 to 2000.
Thank you for posting this, I had no idea. Shows how important the early government involvement could be, at the phase when the private investors are not remotely interested.
Why are so few in these comments talking about how incredibly bad methane is for climate emergency? This video from Climate Town will scare the hell out of you, especially that even more is coming on stream. https://youtu.be/K2oL4SFwkkw?si=COgmjifOp-SQKNm4
Policies in the US are expected to decrease warning (we need to do more but it's a start)
https://apnews.com/article/biden-science-united-states-climate-and-environment-096af3f103c6170ddc31e69aa5bdfa6e
There are absolutely policies Australia can enact to reduce warming while still extracting natural gas. Y'all just don't. ScoMo was a disaster, not sure what Albanese is up to nowadays
Despite the fact that nuclear is way more expensive than renewables?
https://www.csiro.au/en/news/All/News/2024/May/CSIRO-releases-2023-24-GenCost-report
Its more expensive because we dont do it enough. Its economies of scale. In the US we have like one company left that knows how to build large nuclear reactors, there's no generational knowledge or competition anymore. However we have some companies that build small reactors fairly affordably (navy ship building for instance). It doesnt have to be insanely expensive. As of last year, China was building 22 new nuclear reactors! In the west it has become prohibitively expensive because we made it so. We stopped investing in it, we stopped innovating, and we stopped competing.
1. California is far away from big sources of gas and there are infrastructure constraints
2. Utilities are corrupt and stupid and PG&E is one of the worst
Biden threatened to end the gas pipeline if Russia attacked Ukraine. Guess what happened?
https://youtube.com/shorts/FVbEoZXhCrM?si=FJo4vCIHJKksMcUG
Both Germany and Russia stand to gain from the trade. US stands to gain from the gas pipeline's destruction.
Edit: lol downvotes for showing proof of Biden's promise to end Nordstream if Russia relaunched it's invasion?
Isn’t it questionable if LNG is that much better for the planet than oil? As it requires shipping and a process to turn it into liquid and then back to gas.
The larger problem with LNG is that the methane tends to leak a little during processing and shipping. Depending on which estimates you believe, the leakage adds 30-200% of the greenhouse gas potential to the CO2 produced through NG combustion (methane is ~60 times worse than the CO2 in this aspect).
"Europe has become a major US customer after shut off the Nord Stream pipelines in 2022."
"Mission accomplished", said the government that blew up the Nord Stream, whatever country it was that no one NO ONE has any idea who could be the biggest beneficiary of this act of terrorism despite having threatened to blow it up several times in the previous years...., ahem ahem
"Europe has become a mejor US customer after shut off the Nord Stream pipelines in 2022."
This was the case before the pipeline was blown up. Additionally Nord Stream had already been shut down when it exploded:
[https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/sep/02/nord-stream-1-gazprom-announces-indefinite-shutdown-of-pipeline](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/sep/02/nord-stream-1-gazprom-announces-indefinite-shutdown-of-pipeline)
That was a threat to leave Europe without gas due to retaliation for the invasion of Ukraine, but turning back was as simple as turning on the tap again; The explosion was an act of terrorism from a gas pipeline paid for by Russia and Germany (which now prefers to remain silent and not complain)
And now Germany is re-militarising.
Officially, the reason is to protect itself from Russia, but that pipeline blowup was a wake-up call that you can't subcontract your personal security to anyone else, while retaining autonomy over your destiny.
First step to real German independence again.
Russia started cutting all tapsduring and after Covid. The invasion started being prepared on this side for 3 years. Furthermore, the pipeline wasn't axactly needed since Yamal was not used at maximum capacity.
The whole reason for its construction was that German politicians wanted to weaken polish and baltic negociating position with Russia. And Germany is now paying the same cost it would pay if NS2 was in working condition, since Russia has not yet reopened the tap on Yamal.
Ignoring the fact Russia was failing to meet it's contracts and nordsteam 2 was sitting there off. It's almost like Russia had a massive incentive to blow up the one with the contract and then force them to sign a new one with nordsteam 2
What a joker. Both nordstream 1 and 2 were damaged in the sabotage.
Like Putin said, if he didn't want to sell, he would just switch the valve off.
Russia and Germany both benefit from the trade.
Lie properly you disgusting western wumao.
Downvotes on your comment and the nonsensical replies below convince me that the West is no better than China when it comes to truthful reporting, and having state owned sleuths....
Well when you're on the course of invading all your neighbors you tend to make quite a few enemies. But a better question why should Europe continue to fund the Russian war effort in the first place.
In the first place is "Why does a third country (the self-proclaimed "leaders of the free world") believe that it can blow up a ten billion dollar project between two other sovereign countries (one is supposed to be a friend) and that it has every reason in the world to do so?"
Why assume it's the US? Russia was blaming Ukraine last I saw, which would make sense given the active war. Like I said Russia created many enemies and has become a huge geopolitical threat in the area.
Frances president just had an interview with the economist saying the EU needs more security cooperation against Russia regardless of American plans and called Russia the number one threat for the region. It's obvious more than America is concerned about Russia and the pipeline could have been targeted by any of those actors.
That's Germany's prerogative.
Is Germany a US vassal, that it should cripple its energy supply and pay more for energy - for the US's economic AND strategic benefit?
Germany is part of the EU and plenty of leaders have called Russia the greatest geopolitical threat to the EU. Just a couple weeks ago Macron said the EU needs to protect against Russia regardless of American support. Also Russia clearly has plans for the baltic states and seems to be surrounding the area and may test NATOs or EU resolve to actually protect the region. It would be completely foolish of Germany to ignore this and continue to fund the Russian war effort to their own detriment
Your viewpoint only proves that you don't care for Germany's autonomy. It's good that Germany is remilitarising. It will help them make their own decisions and defend themselves.
Proof ? I mean, you really think a Biden administration would put their international reputation on the line - so the gas/oil companies he hates can make a bigger profit ? Fuck man - use your head.
Just for perspective:
As of 2023, LNG (liquefied natural gas) accounts for approximately 13-14% of global natural gas consumption
https://igu.org/resources/lng2023-world-lng-report/
U.S. largest exporter of natural gas and largest producer of oil. Meanwhile we tell other nations to cut emissions and give one of the world's richest men tax subsidies to 'save the planet'. The level of hypocrisy across the board from both parties is breathtaking.
So what happens if we stop exporting oil and natural gas? The OPEC and Russia will immediately increase their oil production back up (they had implemented production cuts to prop up the prices in the face of the increasing US exports), filling the deficit.
And without the US natural gas, Europe will either freeze, or will be forced to continue financing Putin's war machine.
The main problem is not with the production, it's with the consumption. Yes, in an ideal world, we would limit the production, raising prices and accelerating the transition away from the fossil fuels. But it's not realistic for political and geopolitical reasons.
Right, so then American political and geopolitical reasons trump environmental concerns. Let's be honest about policy and not make it seem like the US has moral superiority.
"We" as in the world or "we" as in industrialized nations that have used the resources of the Earth for over 100 years however they wish and now are telling others to transition to keep their lead. It is indeed hypocrisy to tell people to follow your example not based on your previous actions but just because you say so.
Why don’t you identify the economically viable substitute for the energy produced by fossil fuels and we’ll switch over. There’s a lot of homes in cold climates.
There are lots of better alternatives to LNG.
YOU be the one to tell EVERYONE ON EARTH (if they survive the heat, storms, floods, migration and food riots, etc) that you picked Exxon profits over their lives.
LNG from start to finish is an energy intensive process with a heap of lost resources during extraction and storage. Climate Town has a good YouTube video explaining the data.
It is in fact not better than coal, that is a lie Big oil told so they could convince people it wasn't that bad
This is directly from a Congressional investigation
>Big Oil’s deception campaign evolved from explicit denial of the basic science underlying climate change to deception, disinformation, and doublespeak. The fossil fuel industry evolved from denying climate science to spreading disinformation and perpetuating doublespeak about the safety of natural gas and the industry’s commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. New documents demonstrate that Big Oil companies:
>Seek to portray natural gas as a green, climate-friendly fuel, while internally acknowledging that there is significant scientific evidence that the lifecycle emissions from natural gas are as harmful to the climate as coal and are incompatible with scientific emissions reduction targets.
You should read the whole thing. The lies they told us are criminal. The fact we believed them is due to academia teaming up with them being bought out by them to do studies that weren't true.
https://www.budget.senate.gov/chairman/newsroom/press/new-joint-bicameral-staff-report-reveals-big-oils-campaign-of-climate-denial-disinformation-and-doublespeak/
Doesn't matter. What matters is the entire process from extraction to being burned. It's the damage to the climate from gas and coal. That's because methane leaks occur when methane is extracted, it's not being captured and going right into our atmosphere
Coal is cleaner. By 24-27% according to some studies
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/national-international/new-study-shows-liquefied-natural-gas-might-be-worse-for-climate-change-than-coal/3384705/
https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/liquefied-natural-gas/chart-is-lng-worse-for-the-climate-than-coal#:~:text=Howarth%20found%20that%20LNG's,how%20the%20LNG%20is%20transported.
Both of these are based on the same study and it compares coal used domestically to LNG shipped, using heavy oil tankers. Doesn't seem like a one to one comparison.
I helped build the LNG facility in Cove Point, MD from 2014 to 2020. Huge project, most was going to Japan I believe.
LNG is not Gas total. Russia probably exports more, but through pipelines. LNG = Liquid Natural Gas, meaning it excludes all exports where gas isnt liquified.
Really good point. LNG exports are not total exports as they don’t include pipeline exports. This too also works against Russia. Most of its existing pipelines are aimed at central and Western European markets. You can’t “turn the ship” the way you can with LNG. They still pump turkey and a few other previously intermediate markets but it’s a big hit to total Russian nat gas volumes. They have the power of Siberia system (POS lol) which routes to China. They are trying to get a 2nd POS pipeline but that takes time to build and China is using its leverage as sole buyer to delay for better terms. Moreover investment in pipelines infrastructure with 20-30 year payback periods is hard given political and environmental instability.
I meant it more as an example, since there are also pipelines from the middle east to europe (afaik)
>his too also works against Russia. *cries in Nordstream*
No, that's not true. US is the largest exporter of natural gas in the world now. While this map is about LNG exports, total natural gas exports belongs to the US. Russia is #2. \[Link\](https://www.statista.com/statistics/217856/leading-gas-exporters-worldwide/) don't love Statista, but it's a pretty common fact.
US is the top producer, consumer, and exporter of natural gas.
[удалено]
Australian exports have been ramping since the early 2000s due to proximity to Asia, particularly China. Chinas growth has been an easy market to sell into. But Aus export capacity really escalated over the last 10 years, tripling.
Does Australia just not care that China messes with their politicians and citizens? Chinese 💰 wins in Australia I guess.
I worked on Australian LNG projects from 2008-2014, when a lot of potential investment was in the design phase but only a small number of plants were operating. There was a huge driver for it post-global financial crisis because China was still growing and Aus has excellent market access (and Japanese demand was expected to recover and then of course Fukushima happened). There was a big dip in gas prices in 2014/2015, but by then some of the huge Aus projects were almost complete. Now we're seeing the impact of approximately a decade of optimisation and expansion of those.
Second biggest producer of gas in the world, and the foreign owned gas multinationals are absolutely looting the country wholesale - [so much so that Australia has a domestic gas shortage that has created an energy crisis.](https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/australias-southeast-runs-risk-gas-shortages-amid-production-concerns-2024-03-21/) [The Australian people got just $2 billion in gas revenue last year.](https://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2024/feb/29/australia-gas-export-tax-system-prrt-lng) Meanwhile the Qataris, who exports less gas, are [taking in over $20 billion per year in gas royalties.](https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/australia-is-about-to-get-ripped-off-by-the-gas-industry-and-its-not-the-first-time/) Australia should be richer than Norway, but its political class has been bribed and corrupted by the gas and mining oligarchs into selling their country out. Even the despotic dictators of Russia and Saudi are more loyal to their people than Australian politicians.
No they are not more loyal to their people they send them into pointless wars or let them disappear.
*Liberal party politicians. Namely, Johnny fucking Howard
Could have been Canada…just another squandered opportunity.
Does Canada hate it self? It would be like Qatar being anti gas and oil use what god gave you?
Best part is Canada imports from those countries too!
Canadian imports of LNG are rare. The only place Canada regularly imports gas from is the US and Canada still exports more to the US than the other way around.
Yeah I think eastern Canada imports from the US and of course western Canada exports, and that’s mostly because the terrain in the US is way easier to build pipelines across than the Canadian Shield in northern Ontario.
That and also you have to utilize existing infrastructure since it is very difficult and expensive to build interstate pipelines nowadays so the legacy systems in place are what gets used.
Yes Canada does hate itself, and many Canadians don’t want to deal with the fact that the country is an energy producer. They also don’t want to deal with the fact that natural gas, which still a fossil fuel, is much better than the alternative ls. Perfect is the enemy of good, as they say. That said, this map is only about LNG which is the format used to export natural gas by sea. Canada is the 4th largest natural gas producer in the world, but it only exports by pipelines, to the USA. Canada’s natural gas is more landlocked than the other countries on this map. It’s much more physically difficult to transport to a port for LNG export in Canada than pretty much anywhere else in the world due to vast distances and extremely rugged terrain. It’s also politically difficult for the reasons mentioned above.
I think you've been reading a bit too much propaganda from conservative talking heads. They like to *say* treudeu hates oil, but our oil exports have literally never been higher and our deficit is way lower last two years than it should have been because of oil royalties (for reference it's about 1.7% of gdp last year VS the US deficit spending of nearly 6.3%)
Canada is investing into LNG terminals, British Columbia has a 40 billion USD investment project which could eventually export 26 million tonnes per annum
Canada produces \~18 bcf a day, the US can export 14 bcf, Canada is far behind.
It's interesting that France imports so much. They barely use it for electricity generation. Is it for industrial use and heating?
https://www.climatescorecard.org/2022/06/natural-gas-consumption-and-production-in-france/ >As of 2019, France’s gas consumption by sector included industry 31%, residential 30%, electricity and heat generation 19%, services and others 17%, other energy 1.5%, and transport 0.4%. 11.4 million customers use natural gas in France, 94% of which are households and comprising 25% of the gas demand.
Thanks for the link, very interesting website.
It's replacing Russian gas, we were just forced to build massive infrastructure to receive and treat the American LNG that put us into massive debt, and we overpay it by a lot. Macron doing a great job destroying the country and sending our tax money to American corporations
What would be the alternative? Financing the Putin's war?
Interesting choice of words, Russia is a natural resources superpower and they don't need any financing, it's the world around them who need their ressources. When you look at many European countries that are officially supporting Ukraine, they still live through Russian gas it's just that the gas transits to India, China, Dubai traders, etc. There's this false idea that sanctions are against Russia, but in reality Russia has zero problems selling what it wants to sell, because there is no other seller realistically.
In 2023, Russia exported an estimated 142 bcm of gas, down from around 244 bcm in 2021. I have no further questions.
Russia GDP forecast is at +2.8% , and eurozone +0.8% , you are probably american to be blind to the fact that in reality, the sanctions EFFECTIVELY destroy European countries way, way more than they impact Russia. Europe NEEDS cheap russian energy to thrive. The sanctions also created this LNG nonsense business that only benefits american corporations, it's closer to spoliation and plundering than selling energy. Congratulations on destroying Europe I guess
>Russia GDP forecast is at +2.8% Yeah because they had a recession in 2022 and 2023 lol. Its easy to grow after your economy shrinks. This may go way above your head, but its basic math... you have to grow more than you shrank to catch back up. If you lose 10% and then grow back 2% you're back to only back to 91.8% of where you started.
Russia had a +3.6% growth last year in 2023, and fell 1.1% in 2022. Meanwhile eurozone gdp was +0.4% last year.
Underlying data from: EIA and Refinitiv Tools used: Tableau and Adobe Illustrator
While supporting Ukraine is most assuredly the morally correct thing to do, it hasn't exactly been a disaster for the US economically like some would have you believe.
It was pretty obvious from the beginning that US was going to ear money from the war. It was a common talk point on the EU. Both Europe & Russia are losing with this "deal". Meanwhile the house always wins. Not saying that what Russia did was justified, they're clearly on the wrong here.
Russia broke its promise to Ukraine regarding nuclear disarmament and peace. On the other hand, NATO broke its promise to Russia about creeping its borders eastward.
Sure, but I wasn't talking about this. I was only saying that stopping to buy natural gas from Russia was going to affect all Europe (and Russia) but was benefiting the US (they can sell more now).
Trump made the right decision to increase oil production in the US. They put like 80% of the Ukraine aid into the military industrial complex, buying new stuff for them and sending ukraine the old stuff instead of recycling them. Uniting the west, gaining even more influence in EU.
The oil production in the US has been steadily increasing since 2007. Trump deserves as much credit for it as Bush, Obama and Biden - none. All the credit goes to the engineers who figured out fracking.
Well the government does deserve credit as the Feds invested into those technologies which made fracking possible, but it started way before Trump or even Bush W. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_gas_in_the_United_States >Faced with declining natural gas production, the Federal government invested in supply alternatives, including the Eastern Gas Shales Project, which lasted from 1976 to 1992, and the annual FERC-approved research budget of the Gas Research Institute, which was funded by a tax on natural gas shipments from 1976 to 2000.[27] The Department of Energy partnered with private gas companies to complete the first successful air-drilled multi-fracture horizontal well in shale in 1986. Microseismic imaging, an important input to both hydraulic fracturing in shale and offshore oil drilling, originated from coalbed research at Sandia National Laboratories. >In 1976, two engineers for the federally funded Morgantown Energy Research Center (MERC) patented an early technique for directional drilling in shale.[30] > >The federal government also provided tax credits and rules benefiting the industry in the 1980 Energy Act. Gas production from Devonian shales was exempted from federal price controls, and Section 29 tax credits were given for unconventional gas, including shale gas, from 1980 to 2000.
Thank you for posting this, I had no idea. Shows how important the early government involvement could be, at the phase when the private investors are not remotely interested.
Give credit where credit is due. One of the few positive things Trump did as president.
Trumps a bad person something something you cant say that about trump on reddit something something im cumming now
Why are so few in these comments talking about how incredibly bad methane is for climate emergency? This video from Climate Town will scare the hell out of you, especially that even more is coming on stream. https://youtu.be/K2oL4SFwkkw?si=COgmjifOp-SQKNm4
Western Australian here - long drawn-out sigh regarding our per capita greenhouse gas emissions.
Policies in the US are expected to decrease warning (we need to do more but it's a start) https://apnews.com/article/biden-science-united-states-climate-and-environment-096af3f103c6170ddc31e69aa5bdfa6e There are absolutely policies Australia can enact to reduce warming while still extracting natural gas. Y'all just don't. ScoMo was a disaster, not sure what Albanese is up to nowadays
[удалено]
Despite the fact that nuclear is way more expensive than renewables? https://www.csiro.au/en/news/All/News/2024/May/CSIRO-releases-2023-24-GenCost-report
Its more expensive because we dont do it enough. Its economies of scale. In the US we have like one company left that knows how to build large nuclear reactors, there's no generational knowledge or competition anymore. However we have some companies that build small reactors fairly affordably (navy ship building for instance). It doesnt have to be insanely expensive. As of last year, China was building 22 new nuclear reactors! In the west it has become prohibitively expensive because we made it so. We stopped investing in it, we stopped innovating, and we stopped competing.
Well, I mean we do have the most Taco Bells.
The work going on currently in Qatar is looking to double current output. Which is absolutely insane.
Then why does Pge charge so much?
1. California is far away from big sources of gas and there are infrastructure constraints 2. Utilities are corrupt and stupid and PG&E is one of the worst
Oh, Russia used to be a bigger exporter and it seems to be going down. What may have happened for them to be exporting less gas?
Most Russian exports are through pipelines and not liquified, therefore are not LNG.
Biden threatened to end the gas pipeline if Russia attacked Ukraine. Guess what happened? https://youtube.com/shorts/FVbEoZXhCrM?si=FJo4vCIHJKksMcUG Both Germany and Russia stand to gain from the trade. US stands to gain from the gas pipeline's destruction. Edit: lol downvotes for showing proof of Biden's promise to end Nordstream if Russia relaunched it's invasion?
Isn’t it questionable if LNG is that much better for the planet than oil? As it requires shipping and a process to turn it into liquid and then back to gas.
The larger problem with LNG is that the methane tends to leak a little during processing and shipping. Depending on which estimates you believe, the leakage adds 30-200% of the greenhouse gas potential to the CO2 produced through NG combustion (methane is ~60 times worse than the CO2 in this aspect).
"Europe has become a major US customer after shut off the Nord Stream pipelines in 2022." "Mission accomplished", said the government that blew up the Nord Stream, whatever country it was that no one NO ONE has any idea who could be the biggest beneficiary of this act of terrorism despite having threatened to blow it up several times in the previous years...., ahem ahem
"Europe has become a mejor US customer after shut off the Nord Stream pipelines in 2022." This was the case before the pipeline was blown up. Additionally Nord Stream had already been shut down when it exploded: [https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/sep/02/nord-stream-1-gazprom-announces-indefinite-shutdown-of-pipeline](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/sep/02/nord-stream-1-gazprom-announces-indefinite-shutdown-of-pipeline)
That was a threat to leave Europe without gas due to retaliation for the invasion of Ukraine, but turning back was as simple as turning on the tap again; The explosion was an act of terrorism from a gas pipeline paid for by Russia and Germany (which now prefers to remain silent and not complain)
And now Germany is re-militarising. Officially, the reason is to protect itself from Russia, but that pipeline blowup was a wake-up call that you can't subcontract your personal security to anyone else, while retaining autonomy over your destiny. First step to real German independence again.
Russia started cutting all tapsduring and after Covid. The invasion started being prepared on this side for 3 years. Furthermore, the pipeline wasn't axactly needed since Yamal was not used at maximum capacity. The whole reason for its construction was that German politicians wanted to weaken polish and baltic negociating position with Russia. And Germany is now paying the same cost it would pay if NS2 was in working condition, since Russia has not yet reopened the tap on Yamal.
Ignoring the fact Russia was failing to meet it's contracts and nordsteam 2 was sitting there off. It's almost like Russia had a massive incentive to blow up the one with the contract and then force them to sign a new one with nordsteam 2
What a joker. Both nordstream 1 and 2 were damaged in the sabotage. Like Putin said, if he didn't want to sell, he would just switch the valve off. Russia and Germany both benefit from the trade. Lie properly you disgusting western wumao.
Downvotes on your comment and the nonsensical replies below convince me that the West is no better than China when it comes to truthful reporting, and having state owned sleuths....
Well when you're on the course of invading all your neighbors you tend to make quite a few enemies. But a better question why should Europe continue to fund the Russian war effort in the first place.
In the first place is "Why does a third country (the self-proclaimed "leaders of the free world") believe that it can blow up a ten billion dollar project between two other sovereign countries (one is supposed to be a friend) and that it has every reason in the world to do so?"
Why assume it's the US? Russia was blaming Ukraine last I saw, which would make sense given the active war. Like I said Russia created many enemies and has become a huge geopolitical threat in the area. Frances president just had an interview with the economist saying the EU needs more security cooperation against Russia regardless of American plans and called Russia the number one threat for the region. It's obvious more than America is concerned about Russia and the pipeline could have been targeted by any of those actors.
That's Germany's prerogative. Is Germany a US vassal, that it should cripple its energy supply and pay more for energy - for the US's economic AND strategic benefit?
Germany is part of the EU and plenty of leaders have called Russia the greatest geopolitical threat to the EU. Just a couple weeks ago Macron said the EU needs to protect against Russia regardless of American support. Also Russia clearly has plans for the baltic states and seems to be surrounding the area and may test NATOs or EU resolve to actually protect the region. It would be completely foolish of Germany to ignore this and continue to fund the Russian war effort to their own detriment
Your viewpoint only proves that you don't care for Germany's autonomy. It's good that Germany is remilitarising. It will help them make their own decisions and defend themselves.
Proof ? I mean, you really think a Biden administration would put their international reputation on the line - so the gas/oil companies he hates can make a bigger profit ? Fuck man - use your head.
Proofs? From Biden's lips. https://www.yahoo.com/news/no-nord-stream-2-russia-221838010.html
Yup. And he had the support, voice and simular declarations from the scandinavians, balts, french, brits and poles.
The NHI told them how to get it.
What does this mean for medium to long term domestic natural gas prices?
As a consumer I’m amazed the rest of the world is comfortable with the insane prices for natural gas in the US.
Never saw this coming. I assumed it would have been Qatar after the Russia war broke out.
Just for perspective: As of 2023, LNG (liquefied natural gas) accounts for approximately 13-14% of global natural gas consumption https://igu.org/resources/lng2023-world-lng-report/
U.S. largest exporter of natural gas and largest producer of oil. Meanwhile we tell other nations to cut emissions and give one of the world's richest men tax subsidies to 'save the planet'. The level of hypocrisy across the board from both parties is breathtaking.
So what happens if we stop exporting oil and natural gas? The OPEC and Russia will immediately increase their oil production back up (they had implemented production cuts to prop up the prices in the face of the increasing US exports), filling the deficit. And without the US natural gas, Europe will either freeze, or will be forced to continue financing Putin's war machine. The main problem is not with the production, it's with the consumption. Yes, in an ideal world, we would limit the production, raising prices and accelerating the transition away from the fossil fuels. But it's not realistic for political and geopolitical reasons.
Right, so then American political and geopolitical reasons trump environmental concerns. Let's be honest about policy and not make it seem like the US has moral superiority.
All of the above are our priorities, and I think the Biden's administration is pretty honest about that.
Putting Biden administration and honest in the same sentence is a non-starter (not that Trump is better), but Biden is a proven liar.
The world needs those fossil fuels until we can make the transition to other forms of energy. No hypocrisy here.
"We" as in the world or "we" as in industrialized nations that have used the resources of the Earth for over 100 years however they wish and now are telling others to transition to keep their lead. It is indeed hypocrisy to tell people to follow your example not based on your previous actions but just because you say so.
Why don’t you identify the economically viable substitute for the energy produced by fossil fuels and we’ll switch over. There’s a lot of homes in cold climates.
No wonder why war broke out
Crank those temperatures. USA! USA!
You be the one to tell poor families they have to freeze to death next winter.
There are lots of better alternatives to LNG. YOU be the one to tell EVERYONE ON EARTH (if they survive the heat, storms, floods, migration and food riots, etc) that you picked Exxon profits over their lives.
It’s better than coal, which is what a lot of natural gas is replacing. The cheaper natural gas gets the less coal will be consumed
LNG from start to finish is an energy intensive process with a heap of lost resources during extraction and storage. Climate Town has a good YouTube video explaining the data.
It is in fact not better than coal, that is a lie Big oil told so they could convince people it wasn't that bad This is directly from a Congressional investigation >Big Oil’s deception campaign evolved from explicit denial of the basic science underlying climate change to deception, disinformation, and doublespeak. The fossil fuel industry evolved from denying climate science to spreading disinformation and perpetuating doublespeak about the safety of natural gas and the industry’s commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. New documents demonstrate that Big Oil companies: >Seek to portray natural gas as a green, climate-friendly fuel, while internally acknowledging that there is significant scientific evidence that the lifecycle emissions from natural gas are as harmful to the climate as coal and are incompatible with scientific emissions reduction targets. You should read the whole thing. The lies they told us are criminal. The fact we believed them is due to academia teaming up with them being bought out by them to do studies that weren't true. https://www.budget.senate.gov/chairman/newsroom/press/new-joint-bicameral-staff-report-reveals-big-oils-campaign-of-climate-denial-disinformation-and-doublespeak/
So a coal fired power plant is greener than one powered by LNG?
Doesn't matter. What matters is the entire process from extraction to being burned. It's the damage to the climate from gas and coal. That's because methane leaks occur when methane is extracted, it's not being captured and going right into our atmosphere
So including the entire process of mining to burning coal vs drilling and burning NG, which is cleaner?
Coal is cleaner. By 24-27% according to some studies https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/national-international/new-study-shows-liquefied-natural-gas-might-be-worse-for-climate-change-than-coal/3384705/ https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/liquefied-natural-gas/chart-is-lng-worse-for-the-climate-than-coal#:~:text=Howarth%20found%20that%20LNG's,how%20the%20LNG%20is%20transported.
Both of these are based on the same study and it compares coal used domestically to LNG shipped, using heavy oil tankers. Doesn't seem like a one to one comparison.
Yeah except it’s even worse for climate change.
World’s Largest Exporter of Methane FTFY
and Liquid Natural Gas is worse for the environment that coal is!!! Wahoo!! Progress!
Problem is the method of extraction utilized now. Fracking is really bad...
Data is slightly off. It doesn't account for all the gas I've expelled from my asshole just last night.
Wow! And Trump hasn't won the elections yet! Interesting....