What's new

Goodbye Russian Natural Gas! Lithuania signs US deal!!!

Having experience in maritime operations, i can say you never fail to demonstrate your lack of critical thinking. The US will have to ship that gas via large gas thirsty tankers that will require fuel, a crew and maintenance. That gas will have to be pumped into into the tanker which will take hundreds of trucks and hundreds or thousands of employees to oversee everything, at best case scenario the gas will be shipped from a terminal but even then that will require hundreds of people. Then the question is, does Lithuania have a terminal somewhere on the coast? If not that will take hundreds of more trucks to transport the gas after the shipment.


Then the tankers will have to be kept at dock and under security. I have been on 160 ft ships and it cost over $200,000 to top off the fuel tanks, tankers are usually over 1000 ft long, and there displacement/weight and drag is awful. Russia pumps very cheap and abundant fuel via pipelines.


Lithuanian gas will undoubtedly be much more expensive, it would not surprise me if the price multiples.

US has been building transatlantic pipeline since 2013....

Think u probably missed this news

European Commission - PRESS RELEASES - Press release - A Transatlantic Energy Revolution: Europe's Energy Diversification and U.S. Unconventional Oil and Gas
 
Obama caused the chaos in ME and Europe in order to get more capitals flowing back to the US, so the US economy can be rebooming again.

This is the trick played by every US President; Clinton on Kosovo and Bush on Iraq, and it resulted that the Euro currency was getting harmed heavily.

BTW, as for the LNG ships, only three options for them, China/Korea/Japan.

China is out of question, so the two left options are Korea and Japan, but if they are doing this, then it is the time for them to say goodbye with the Russian gas, since they are even much more energy hungry than China.


If this is the case they will have to pay fuel costs for the ships to sail from Korea or Japan, to the US, from the US all the way to Lithuania and likely they might even have to pay for the fuel cost of the ship(s) to go back to Korea or Japan.

Now factor paying the crew, paying for security likely every time the ship docks at port. Paying for the transport including manpower of getting the fuel to the terminal, transporting the fuel onto the ship, pumping the fuel off the ship, ect. Again there is a lot of manpower involved and people do not work for free, not to mention Lithuania will have to transport or store the fuel once they receive it.
 
If this is the case they will have to pay fuel costs for the ships to sail from Korea or Japan, to the US, from the US all the way to Lithuania and likely they might even have to pay for the fuel cost of the ship(s) to go back to Korea or Japan.

Now factor paying the crew, paying for security likely every time the ship docks at port. Paying for the transport including manpower of getting the fuel to the terminal, transporting the fuel onto the ship, pumping the fuel off the ship, ect. Again there is a lot of manpower involved and people do not work for free, not to mention Lithuania will have to transport or store the fuel once they receive it.

Well, the US has written a blank check to them, when the order fee was paid, they may not even receive the gas in several years, since it will take South Korea or Japan some time to build those new LNG ships.

At the end, the US has written a lot of blank check, just like they have done to Ukraine. The Ukranian junta government has sent all their gold to the US, yet they haven't received a penny back, since the US has promised to provide them the financial aid.
 

Good luck, that is if it ever is complete. It is difficult to invest that kind of money when a country is 18 trillion in debt, unless oil companies can afford to cover the cost, but considering the financial losses that they have taken and are expecting to take, this is questionable. Cost wise Russia sells some of the cheapest oil in the world, so the chances of Lithuania getting a better deal....slim.
 
Good luck, that is if it ever is complete. It is difficult to invest that kind of money when a country is 18 trillion in debt, unless oil companies can afford to cover the cost, but considering the financial losses that they have taken and are expecting to take, this is questionable. Cost wise Russia sells some of the cheapest oil in the world, so the chances of Lithuania getting a better deal....slim.

Both America and Lithuania may think it is worth it to pay a slightly higher cost, just to spite Russia.
 
Good luck, that is if it ever is complete. It is difficult to invest that kind of money when a country is 18 trillion in debt, unless oil companies can afford to cover the cost, but considering the financial losses that they have taken and are expecting to take, this is questionable. Cost wise Russia sells some of the cheapest oil in the world, so the chances of Lithuania getting a better deal....slim.

dude, America is 18 trillion in debt but they are no where broke, America can invest 500 billions in a stealth fighter, do you think the American is poor enough to lay underwater pipeline?

Plus laying pipeline to EU mean the oil company have a new market, so they are effectively paying money to make money, you should not be that short sighted
 
Is it gonna be more expensive?
Hell yeah

We'll probably cut them a break just to bust Putins balls.:enjoy:
You devil us never cuts a deal unless its israel. You know well whos gonna buld the terminal , ships etc more revenue for you

Well its a lot like nawaz sharif promising the moon and guess what , nothing ever materializes , ever
 
Not smart, they will loose money, under russian guidance all those baltic states produced cars, were known for their perfume and expensive balms, now under EU they make sardines and clean toilets for the rest of the EU.. how sad...

bye bye independant baltics - welcome to uncle sams arms, you will never be great again

now the only thing left is to buy lots of weapons that are not needed, please spend all your money on the f35 lol
 
Lithuania signs US deal to replace Russian gas

Lithuania said Saturday it had signed a trade agreement to buy liquified natural gas from the United States in a move aimed at reducing the EU Baltic state's heavy dependence on Russian gas deliveries.

Under the deal with Houston-based Chenier Energy company, the first LNG fuel is expected to arrive in Lithuania as early as next year, state-owned company Litgas said in a statement.

"This agreement entered into with Cheniere ... will provide us access to the prolific US natural gas market," Litgas General Manager Dominykas Tuckus said.

Lithuania's first floating LNG terminal started commercial activity in January, becoming the first such facility to sever Moscow's grip on gas deliveries to the Baltic states.

The nation of three million will initially import 0.54 billion cubic metres of gas from Statoil in 2015, covering about one-fifth of its demand.

The first US LNG export terminal is expected to starts its operations later this year.

The Baltic states' reliance on Russia for gas is a legacy of its five decades of Soviet rule, which ended in 1991.

Members of the EU and NATO since 2014, Lithuania and fellow Baltic states Latvia and Estonia are concerned about Russia's actions in Ukraine and fear that Moscow could attempt to destabilize its Soviet-era Baltic backyard.

"LNG exports by the US may weaken the position of Russia which uses its energy resources as an energy weapon to blackmail countries dependent on Russian gas," Lithuania's Energy Minister Rokas Masiulis said this week.

Lithuania signs deal for U.S. LNG| Reuters

Lithuania signs US deal to replace Russian gas

@mike2000 @Steve781 @flamer84 @Gabriel92 - looks like Big Daddy 'Merica is ready to step in and replace Russia:usflag::usflag::usflag:!!!

Bad for the Russians

Obama caused the chaos in ME and Europe in order to get more capitals flowing back to the US, so the US economy can be rebooming again.

This is the trick played by every US President; Clinton on Kosovo and Bush on Iraq, and it resulted that the Euro currency was getting harmed heavily.

BTW, as for the LNG ships, only three options for them, China/Korea/Japan.

China is out of question, so the two left options are Korea and Japan, but if they are doing this, then it is the time for them to say goodbye with the Russian gas, since they are even much more energy hungry than China.

Indian has also tied up with the Koreans & Japanese to build LNG carriers but our relations with Russia is fine
Be practical Russia will not break off ties with Japan or Korea just becuz they are helping them build Some Civillian ships
 
Hell yeah


You devil us never cuts a deal unless its israel. You know well whos gonna buld the terminal , ships etc more revenue for you


Well its a lot like nawaz sharif promising the moon and guess what , nothing ever materializes , ever

Well, its not like they were Planning in 2013, but they were BUILDING IT in 2013, they are going to finish the pupeline somewhere in 2017.

Its not a promise, its an actual action in progress, people are laying cable somewhere over the atlantic as we speak...
 
Well, its not like they were Planning in 2013, but they were BUILDING IT in 2013, they are going to finish the pupeline somewhere in 2017.

Its not a promise, its an actual action in progress, people are laying cable somewhere over the atlantic as we speak...
'liquid gas'
 
Having experience in maritime operations, i can say you never fail to demonstrate your lack of critical thinking. The US will have to ship that gas via large gas thirsty tankers that will require fuel, a crew and maintenance. ....

Yeah, so ? We're building all that shit now, Charlie. There are ALREADY contracts signed to ship gas to India and Japan. If we can get the stuff there, we can get it to the Baltics. So much for your 'critical thinking', genius. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!!:nana:

U.S. natural gas exports poised for takeoff despite debate

Wendy Koch, USA TODAY 4:29 p.m. EDT April 7, 2014
1396537641000-AP-Natural-Gas-Exports.jpg

(Photo: Dominion Resources via AP)


The export gas rush is on. From the Pacific Northwest to the Mid-Atlantic to the Gulf states, companies are moving forward with plans to export U.S. natural gas despite controversy over the impact on prices and pollution.

Russia's incursion into Crimea has intensified pressure on the Obama administration to expedite approvals for export facilities. Some members of Congress say U.S. exports can weaken Russia's hold on the Ukraine, which depends heavily on Russia for natural gas. Others doubt they'd give the U.S. geopolitical leverage — at least not anytime soon.

The export quandary is relatively new for the USA. Until only a few years ago, the country was importing a sizable share of natural gas, and companies were seeking to build import — not export — terminals.

Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, changed all that. By breaking apart shale with powerful blasts of chemical-laced water, this drilling method extracted enough natural gas from rock to set off a record boom in U.S. production. The USA now produces more natural gas than any other country. Yet Russia, the second largest producer, is the world's top net exporter, followed by Qatar and Norway.

The reason: U.S. law requires export facilities get a "public interest" approval from the Department of Energy if their buyers are located in countries that haven't signed a Free Trade Agreement with the United States. Non-FTA countries include all European nations as well as China, India and Japan.

Currently, some U.S. natural gas is exported to Canada and Mexico via pipeline, but the proposed facilities would export to Asia and other continents. These billion-dollar liquefaction terminals condense natural gas into a liquid — or LNG — by cooling it to about 260 degrees below zero before shipping it via tankers.

Thirty-one facilities have applied for DOE permission. Since May 2011, six of them — two in Cameron Parish, La., one in Lake Charles, La., one in Texas, one in Maryland and one in Oregon — have received conditional approval. Only one, Cheniere Energy's Sabine Pass Liquefaction terminal in Cameron Parish, has received the final construction go-ahead from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. It's slated to begin operation next year.

Like Sabine Pass, several of the approved facilities would be added to existing import terminals. If all six are built, they'd be allowed to export up to 9.3 billion cubic feet of natural gas a day, and if the other 25 proposed projects are also constructed, the total could reach 36 Bcf a day. The USA now produces and consumes about 70 Bcf daily, according to DOE's Energy Information Administration.

"We have crossed a line into an era when we could be massively exporting America's natural gas, sending the jobs and consumer benefits abroad along with the fuel," Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass., said last month, predicting higher domestic prices. "The level of exports approved is now more than every single American home consumes."

"The propane crisis this winter was a cautionary tale of going too far too fast," says Trent Duffy, spokesman of America's Energy Advantage, a group of manufacturers including Dow Chemical that oppose LNG exports to non-FTA countries. He notes propane prices soared, because companies were exporting a record amount at a time when a cold winter increased U.S. demand.

Duffy says LNG exports could hike manufacturing costs and hurt the U.S. economy. Assuming a large volume of exports, a December 2013 Dow-funded study by Charles Rivers Associates predicts domestic natural gas prices could almost triple by 2030.

No way, says W. David Montgomery, senior vice president of NERA Economic Consulting and author of a DOE-commissioned 2012 report on the impact of LNG exports. He says while domestic prices might rise, exports would deliver net economic gains for the U.S.

"The (price) impact ranged from absolutely nothing to, at the very highest, $1 increase (per million Btu) by 2038," he says about his latest analysis, conducted for Cheniere Energy and released in February. He says the average U.S. household used 40 million Btu last year, so the maximum increase would be about $40.

He expects the domestic price increase would likely be much lower (36 cents by 2038) but American consumers would benefit overall, because LNG exports would boost the value of the U.S. dollar and thus reduce the cost of U.S. imports.

Montgomery says the export market is largely self-regulating. If the price of natural gas rises in the USA, he says the extra costs of liquefaction and shipping will make exports too expensive for foreign buyers. He says high export volumes are only likely if U.S. prices are lower than they are today.

"This is risky business, because if environmental pressures put serious limits on fracking and raise the price of producing natural gas, we might not be exporting any," Montgomery says. "The market does a better job at figuring out the sweet spot than any government agency."

Proponents of U.S. gas exports, including GOP House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, say they can be wielded as a geopolitical tool. They argue that even U.S. exports to Asia free up global supply that can go to Europe and put pressure on Russia, which is trying to lure customers into signing its own 20-year deals.

"The U.S. can have an immediate impact" by expediting current applications and showing that it's committed to future exports, says Bill Cooper, president of the Center for Liquefied Natural Gas, an industry group. He says this could hurt Russia's negotiating hand.

Last month in Brussels, President Obama told the European Union that it cannot rely on the USA alone to reduce its dependence on Russian energy. He urged it to conclude a new trans-Atlantic trade pact, saying that would make it easier for Washington to license more gas exports. DOE gives almost automatic approval for exports to countries that have signed free trade deals with the USA.

Hastening U.S. gas exports won't have "much immediate effect," Edward Chow, an energy expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told a Senate panel last month. He said they could eventually reduce the significance of Russian exports — now equal to twice the capacity of the six approved U.S. facilities — "but none of this will happen quickly."

Chow notes that U.S. companies — not the federal government — pick LNG buyers, most of which are already under contract in Asia where prices are highest. He says some of those exports could be redirected if Europe were willing to pay equally high prices, but even so, Ukraine has no LNG import terminal.

"The Asian buyers are tremendously interested," says Don Althoff, president and CEO of Calgary-based Veresen, which got conditional approval last month to build a $5.3 billion Jordan Cove LNG export terminal in Coos Bay, Ore. Althoff says the project, assuming it gets the green light for construction, won't likely become operational until early 2019.

Althoff said LNG export backers who are using the Crimea crisis to make their case are "a bit opportunistic," because it can take four years to plan and build a terminal. He says the crisis may help quicken approvals, but the LNG export market is strong enough on its own.

Dominion Cove Point, which received conditional DOE approval in September 2013 for a liquefaction terminal near the Chesapeake Bay, has 20-year contracts to sell all its LNG exports to two customers — GAIL of India, a state-owned gas distribution company, and Sumitomo of Japan.

The $3.8 billion project, about 55 miles southeast of the nation's capital, is waiting for final state and FERC approvals to begin construction, which Dominion's Mike Frederick expects will begin in late summer. If that timetable holds, he says the facility could become operational in late 2017.

Yet it faces increasingly vocal opposition. The "Stop Cove Point" coalition says the facility will not only raise energy costs but also increase smog pollution and global carbon emissions. A group of health, religious, environmental and business leaders, the coalition has delivered 38,000 public comments to the Maryland Public Service Commission, which has to rule on Dominion's application by the end of May.

"These are exactly the projects we should not build if we're serious about climate change," says Jamie Henn, spokesman for 350.org, a grass-roots climate action group. He says fracking for natural gas releases methane, a more potent heat-trapping greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and the additional steps needed for export — liquefying and shipping — use a lot of energy that exacerbates global warming.

Henn says LNG exports are another way to expand a fossil fuel industry that needs to be scaled back in order to avoid cataclysmic climate effects.

"We're truly a middleman," says Frederick, noting his facility liquefies and loads the gas but does not produce it. He says it will create 750 construction jobs and add $22 million annually to the local economy beginning in 2018. He says his facility won't cause an increase in fracking because "the production is going to go somewhere."
 
Last edited:
Yeah, so ? We're building all that shit now, Charlie. There are ALREADY contracts signed to ship gas to India and Japan. If we can get the stuff there, we can get it to the Baltics. So much for your 'critical thinking', genius. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!!:nana:



You never fail to demonstrate ignorance. :lol: Firstly I was talking about Lithuania, secondly if Lithuanian does receive gas from the US they will need to either built a new terminal or link it to an existing terminal.
 
Back
Top Bottom