8 ms·

Gas is easy to transport, but only really by pipeline. LNG is a lot more expensive and capital-intensive. And there is only one place with rising demand where i

Gas is easy to transport, but only really by pipeline. LNG is a lot more expensive and capital-intensive. And there is only one place with rising demand where it's easy to transport U.S. natural gas: Mexico. Pipeline gas exports to Mexico did nearly triple between 2011 and 2016 [1]. Exports to Canada over the same period fell, however. Anywhere besides Canada and Mexico requires liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals, which are very expensive and have low capacity compared to a pipeline. You'd need a lot of them to make up for the lost demand from even a relatively small percentage of American natural-gas power plants shutting down. So if production is really going to continue apace, it depends almost entirely on Mexico's demand continuing to increase. [1] https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_move_expc_s1_a.htm https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_move_expc_s1_a.htm

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
seanmcdirmid 9y ago
Investments in LNG are already sunk, however. Japan and China are already big importers.
- sunbuntu 9y ago
  Australia invested over $200 Billion on LNG export facilities. All based on long-term contracts, now none of the countries require anything like the quantity agreed to. They are selling the Australian gas at lower prices than their contracts, so they lose money but less than they could. One interesting thing is the Australian domestic gas prices are much high than the same gas purchased in Japan despite the $5 per GJ processing and shipping costs.
- _delirium 9y ago
  About 1/3 of the UK's gas imports are as LNG also (the other 2/3 is via pipelines, mainly from Norway). But the LNG comes exclusively from Qatar [1], which has a huge LNG export terminal (and not much domestic demand). The US doesn't have all that much export capacity, though it does seem that more is under construction. From what I can find, current US LNG terminal capacity is around 2 billion cubic feet per day (Bcfpd), equal to a bit under 3% of domestic production. But projects under construction will raise that to about 6 Bcfpd in the next few years. That's more than I would've guessed, and at ~8% of domestic production that's starting to get into a serious potential outlet for gas. Although still not enough to absorb a huge downturn in domestic demand, if there were one. (Side note: The abbreviation Bcfpd sounds like a parody of US customary units, but it does really seem to be in common use.) [1] http://visual.ons.gov.uk/uk-energy-how-much-what-type-and-where-from/ http://visual.ons.gov.uk/uk-energy-how-much-what-type-and-wh...
olegkikin 9y ago
Also Europe is trying to reduce its dependence on the russian natural gas, so they are building LNG terminals all over. LNG tankers are freaking scary though, they are like mini-nukes, approaching 1 megaton equivalent.
- cwal37 9y ago
  For some reason people have this idea that LNG tankers are a big bomb waiting to go up, but that's not really true. Vapor cloud detonation has never been considered particularly likely, and never documented as far as I know. Mostly it seems the vapors that hit the right mix of oxygen and such would burn pretty rapidly, while the warmer gas began to rise. It would certainly be a large fire for a while, but shouldn't have the lasting impact of an oil spill. Here's a paper[1]. [1] http://www.mhpa.co.uk/uploads/Marine_docs/lng_carriers.pdf http://www.mhpa.co.uk/uploads/Marine_docs/lng_carriers.pdf
  - SAI_Peregrinus 9y ago
    The scary bit for LNG is a BLEVE (Boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion). Even non-flammable liquids undergoing a BLEVE can be incredibly destructive, for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgdfgxLApL4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgdfgxLApL4 So it's nothing to do with vapor cloud detonation, that's pretty much irrelevant compared to the destruction of the rapid phase transition from liquid to gas.
    - chongli 9y ago
      I think a tanker ship is pretty safe from a BLEVE. Those explosions usually result from a tank being heated continuously by a very hot fire underneath it. I'm not sure where you would find one of those at sea unless the tanker wrecked on top of an erupting volcano.
      - bigiain 9y ago
        And there's my entry for Bruce Schneier's next movie-plot threat contest...
mtdewcmu 9y ago
I wonder if it's feasible to put a pipeline under the ocean between North America and Europe. It seems crazy, but a lot of crazy stuff has happened.
- adrianmonk 9y ago
  They put a telegraph cable under the ocean in 1858. With all the technology (including materials) we have today, I bet it's very feasible from a technological point of view. An economic point of view is a different question, though.
  - mtdewcmu 9y ago
    It's interesting to speculate on how it could be done. Maybe it could be soft, like a fire hose, and kept open by internal pressure. That way it could be unfurled from a ship. Rigid pipe seems pretty difficult.
    - semi-extrinsic 9y ago
      Rigid steel pipe is the only feasible way, I believe. Current longest subsea pipeline (Nord Stream) is 760 miles. Here's how it's done (it's pretty darned fascinating): https://youtu.be/EyrdjqEiTZc https://youtu.be/EyrdjqEiTZc
      - neltnerb 9y ago
        Yet there's the whole thing where the end points are on tectonic plates moving away from one another... Okay, maybe a little flexible would be good!
    - cr1895 9y ago
      Flexible pipe for subsea O&G has existed for a long time now (it's certainly not soft, but it is flexible and it is installed from huge spools): http://www.technip.com/sites/default/files/technip/fields/publications/attachments/flexible_pipe_july_2015_web.pdf http://www.technip.com/sites/default/files/technip/fields/pu...

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

seanmcdirmid 9y ago

Investments in LNG are already sunk, however. Japan and China are already big importers.

sunbuntu 9y ago
Australia invested over $200 Billion on LNG export facilities. All based on long-term contracts, now none of the countries require anything like the quantity agreed to. They are selling the Australian gas at lower prices than their contracts, so they lose money but less than they could. One interesting thing is the Australian domestic gas prices are much high than the same gas purchased in Japan despite the $5 per GJ processing and shipping costs.
_delirium 9y ago
About 1/3 of the UK's gas imports are as LNG also (the other 2/3 is via pipelines, mainly from Norway). But the LNG comes exclusively from Qatar [1], which has a huge LNG export terminal (and not much domestic demand). The US doesn't have all that much export capacity, though it does seem that more is under construction. From what I can find, current US LNG terminal capacity is around 2 billion cubic feet per day (Bcfpd), equal to a bit under 3% of domestic production. But projects under construction will raise that to about 6 Bcfpd in the next few years. That's more than I would've guessed, and at ~8% of domestic production that's starting to get into a serious potential outlet for gas. Although still not enough to absorb a huge downturn in domestic demand, if there were one. (Side note: The abbreviation Bcfpd sounds like a parody of US customary units, but it does really seem to be in common use.) [1] http://visual.ons.gov.uk/uk-energy-how-much-what-type-and-where-from/ http://visual.ons.gov.uk/uk-energy-how-much-what-type-and-wh...

olegkikin 9y ago

Also Europe is trying to reduce its dependence on the russian natural gas, so they are building LNG terminals all over. LNG tankers are freaking scary though, they are like mini-nukes, approaching 1 megaton equivalent.

cwal37 9y ago
For some reason people have this idea that LNG tankers are a big bomb waiting to go up, but that's not really true. Vapor cloud detonation has never been considered particularly likely, and never documented as far as I know. Mostly it seems the vapors that hit the right mix of oxygen and such would burn pretty rapidly, while the warmer gas began to rise. It would certainly be a large fire for a while, but shouldn't have the lasting impact of an oil spill. Here's a paper[1]. [1] http://www.mhpa.co.uk/uploads/Marine_docs/lng_carriers.pdf http://www.mhpa.co.uk/uploads/Marine_docs/lng_carriers.pdf
- SAI_Peregrinus 9y ago
  The scary bit for LNG is a BLEVE (Boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion). Even non-flammable liquids undergoing a BLEVE can be incredibly destructive, for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgdfgxLApL4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgdfgxLApL4 So it's nothing to do with vapor cloud detonation, that's pretty much irrelevant compared to the destruction of the rapid phase transition from liquid to gas.
  - chongli 9y ago
    I think a tanker ship is pretty safe from a BLEVE. Those explosions usually result from a tank being heated continuously by a very hot fire underneath it. I'm not sure where you would find one of those at sea unless the tanker wrecked on top of an erupting volcano.
    - bigiain 9y ago
      And there's my entry for Bruce Schneier's next movie-plot threat contest...

mtdewcmu 9y ago

I wonder if it's feasible to put a pipeline under the ocean between North America and Europe. It seems crazy, but a lot of crazy stuff has happened.

adrianmonk 9y ago
They put a telegraph cable under the ocean in 1858. With all the technology (including materials) we have today, I bet it's very feasible from a technological point of view. An economic point of view is a different question, though.
- mtdewcmu 9y ago
  It's interesting to speculate on how it could be done. Maybe it could be soft, like a fire hose, and kept open by internal pressure. That way it could be unfurled from a ship. Rigid pipe seems pretty difficult.
  - semi-extrinsic 9y ago
    Rigid steel pipe is the only feasible way, I believe. Current longest subsea pipeline (Nord Stream) is 760 miles. Here's how it's done (it's pretty darned fascinating): https://youtu.be/EyrdjqEiTZc https://youtu.be/EyrdjqEiTZc
    - neltnerb 9y ago
      Yet there's the whole thing where the end points are on tectonic plates moving away from one another... Okay, maybe a little flexible would be good!
  - cr1895 9y ago
    Flexible pipe for subsea O&G has existed for a long time now (it's certainly not soft, but it is flexible and it is installed from huge spools): http://www.technip.com/sites/default/files/technip/fields/publications/attachments/flexible_pipe_july_2015_web.pdf http://www.technip.com/sites/default/files/technip/fields/pu...