4 ms·

My comment, like the linked article, was focused entirely on the US's situation, which has abundant fossil gas to the point that many frackers burn it as a wast

My comment, like the linked article, was focused entirely on the US's situation, which has abundant fossil gas to the point that many frackers burn it as a waste product. I'd totally agree for UK and continental Europe. The difference between oil and gas is massive on the distribution angle, oil moves easily as long as there's not a naval blockade, but fossil gas requires super super expensive infrastructure either via pipeline or LNG. And with nearly all fossil fuel companies in the last stages of their life, trying to maximize profits on existing capital, it's hard to get investor support to buy infrastructure that costs multiple billions and has limited lifetime. I don't know the details in Europe, but it seems like this phasing out of infrastructure as the transition happens is a major hassle... I'd love any links on that sort of info about Europe.

KaiserPro 7mo ago
You're missing the nuance here, gas is priced internationally, as is oil. The distribution costs for the UK are much less than in the US
- epistasis 7mo ago
  LNG may be priced internationally to some degree, but local distribution of gas by pipelines drastically changes that equation. It may only be a few dollars per barrel to transport a barrel of oil, but LNG is far higher due to the massive liquefaction costs. As an indication of just how much natural gas is not priced internationally, US Henry Hub is down around $3/MMBTu, while UK NBP prices are around $14/MMBtu, if I did that correctly. When you say that distribution costs for the UK are much less than in the US, do you mean the cost of distributing natural gas? I'm not following your logic there.