The European Commission has been hard at work looking for alternative supplies of energy amid the growing animosity between Europe and Russia. And this work has paid off. Last week, Die Welt detailed the European Commission’s plans for getting totally rid of Russian gas by the end of the year.
Good morning Howard, Great point! The Biden energy team snuck it in the infrastructure bill as renewable last year as they are using it as "Must Have" to get to carbon net zero, and said that Nat Gas was eligible for renewable projects. Kind of hypocritical if you ask me.
I was chatting with a gas journalist friend about Groningen the other day. I said the Dutch govt had a moral obligation to turn it on as high as possible and my friend said the residents should be rehoused at public expense. This is no time to be fretting about masonry. So that's our views!
Putting myself in the shoes of those residents I honestly can't say if I'd be glad to be rehoused or not. But I definitely do not like the idea of living anywhere around an area with heightened seismic activity. The actual idea of (preventable) heightened seismic activity makes me uneasy, to be perfectly honest.
Also, nonsensical. The only way he could guarantee it, is if the U.S. government purchased the cargos and sold them to Europe. The energy ignorance is this country is pathetic.
Irina, could LNG be considered a renewable resource? I saw someone refer to it like that, and I'm puzzled how it can be?
No, it's a fossil fuel.
Good morning Howard, Great point! The Biden energy team snuck it in the infrastructure bill as renewable last year as they are using it as "Must Have" to get to carbon net zero, and said that Nat Gas was eligible for renewable projects. Kind of hypocritical if you ask me.
A typo! "One tonne of LNG is equal to about 1.38 billion cu m" - you left out a million
Thanks for catching this!
Check your math. It’s actually about 1000 m3/ton.
Which is exactly what Tom said, I'd missed the "million". Fixed now but thanks.
Great article Irina. - Keep it up
I was chatting with a gas journalist friend about Groningen the other day. I said the Dutch govt had a moral obligation to turn it on as high as possible and my friend said the residents should be rehoused at public expense. This is no time to be fretting about masonry. So that's our views!
Putting myself in the shoes of those residents I honestly can't say if I'd be glad to be rehoused or not. But I definitely do not like the idea of living anywhere around an area with heightened seismic activity. The actual idea of (preventable) heightened seismic activity makes me uneasy, to be perfectly honest.
The Biden promise only covers 30% of the LNG needs in your calculation (15/50)
And it's not even guaranteed, that 30%.
Also, nonsensical. The only way he could guarantee it, is if the U.S. government purchased the cargos and sold them to Europe. The energy ignorance is this country is pathetic.
Just discovered your substack! Thank you for sharing your thoughts and insights!
Good day. It seems that Groningen is no longer an alternative: https://www.naturalgasintel.com/dutch-government-to-shutter-groningen-rely-more-on-lng/
Thank you for all the analysis.
Thank you for the update. Algeria is not going to be an option for a while, either. More LNG.