4 ms·

Interesting comparison. Germany's GDP is ~$3T, so a $5B insurance policy is well worth it, even had it not made any revenue, which it seems obv it would have.

Interesting comparison. Germany's GDP is ~$3T, so a $5B insurance policy is well worth it, even had it not made any revenue, which it seems obv it would have. Side note.. SabinePass[1] 30 million tonnes = 30 billion kgs per annum NordStream1[2], 55 billion cubic metres a year Are those about equiv? LNG is 430 kg/m3, 55Bm3*430kg/m3=23,650Bkg, so 1000x more via NordStream, assuming same density. But looks like pipelines may be lightly compressed vs ships more typically higher compressed LNG? Anyone know? [1]https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/cheniere-completes-new-sabine-pass-lng-export-unit-louisiana-2022-02-07/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/cheniere-completes-n... [2]https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/kremlin-nord-stream-1-turbine-be-installed-volumes-will-adjust-2022-07-25/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/kremlin-nord-stream-... [3]http://www.kosancrisplant.com/media/5648/1-lng_basics_82809_final_hq.pdf http://www.kosancrisplant.com/media/5648/1-lng_basics_82809_...

btilly 4y ago
I presented my calculation in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32558820 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32558820. Statistica reports a much higher capacity than your Reuters article reference. Using the same a million tonnes of LNG is 1.38 billion cubic meters that I referenced there, that would still be 52.44 billion cubic meters. My best guess for the (rather large) discrepancy is that Statistica is reporting on how much LNG is able to pass through the terminal, while Reuters is quoting how much they are able to liquify there for export. To answer your other question, a pipeline carries natural gas as a gas, while we ship it in in liquid form in pressurized containers. Therefore ships carry natural gas in a much denser form than pipelines do.

4 ms·

Interesting comparison. Germany's GDP is ~$3T, so a $5B insurance policy is well worth it, even had it not made any revenue, which it seems obv it would have.

by pmayrgundter 4y ago

btilly 4y ago
I presented my calculation in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32558820 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32558820. Statistica reports a much higher capacity than your Reuters article reference. Using the same a million tonnes of LNG is 1.38 billion cubic meters that I referenced there, that would still be 52.44 billion cubic meters. My best guess for the (rather large) discrepancy is that Statistica is reporting on how much LNG is able to pass through the terminal, while Reuters is quoting how much they are able to liquify there for export. To answer your other question, a pipeline carries natural gas as a gas, while we ship it in in liquid form in pressurized containers. Therefore ships carry natural gas in a much denser form than pipelines do.