There is an old saying that when you are in a hole, you should stop digging. You aren't following that advice though. I claim that an LNG terminal on the scal

There is an old saying that when you are in a hole, you should stop digging. You aren't following that advice though. I claim that an LNG terminal on the scale of the Sabine Pass LNG project could replace Nord Stream 1. You claim that 5 such terminals would be a drop in the bucket. Let's look at numbers and see who is right. Nord Stream 1's official capacity is 55 billion cubic meters a year of LNG. (They actually run a bit more than that.) Source: 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-... Sabine Pass is the largest LNG terminal in the world. Its capacity is 55.4 million metric tonnes per year. Source https://www.statista.com/statistics/1263935/largest-operational-lng-terminals-by-capacity-worldwide/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1263935/largest-operatio... Those numbers are close, but the units are different. But 1 million metric tons LNG = 1.38 billion cubic meters LNG. Source: https://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/wholefarm/html/c6-89.html https://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/wholefarm/html/c6-89.... Therefore a single LNG terminal on the same scale as the Sabine Pass LNG project would provide 139% of the official capacity of Nord Stream 1. Do you have any more "corrections" to offer? Or do you wish to keep digging the hole you are in?