Military Review

Counting gas molecules, or Harry Potter will not save Europe

38
In March, 2014, the United States announced that it would soon begin to supply shale gas to Europe. There was also a clarification that “soon” is no earlier than 2020 of the year. Other experts silently took calculators and counted: the American “shale gas” would cost the fraternal Europe one and a half times more expensive than the Russian (this would be the best economic scenario). Experts say that the United States in general will not supply gas to Europeans who have suffered from the dominance of Gazprom: Americans will prefer to saturate the domestic market.



According to the idea of ​​the White House strategists, whose policy cart has long been placed in front of the horse of the economy, American gas will reduce dependence on Russian supplies to the EU countries. At the same time, kind America undertook to help Gazkom and Ukraine. Well, how? Tse Europe.

In the early spring of 2014, B.H. Obama made a regular speech, where he made loud promises.

For the sake of "punishment" of Russia for the "annexation" of the Crimea Harry Potter the owner of the Oval Office has promised that his administration will make every effort to provide the European Union with gas, in the quantity in which it pleases the European Union.

"We are ready to allow the export of natural gas in such quantities daily, in which Europe uses it daily," Obama quotes in March Gazeta.ru.

The publication further notes that, thanks to the "shale revolution", the United States fully met its own needs for blue fuel, and then began talking about the export of gas in liquefied form. However, according to Obama himself, the American LNG will go to Europe no earlier than 2020 of the year.

And whether go?

In July on the site Pravda.Ru An interview with Nikolai Ivanov, a representative of the Energy Department of the Russian Institute of Energy and Finance, was published.

The expert first of all said that energy supplies to the USA are carried out by "private companies that ... make decisions on where to sell these resources on the world market." As for the allegations that the United States intends to supply gas to Europe, "the United States and the president do not command private companies, do not dictate where to supply gas," the specialist said.

Whatever the United States undertakes, "the supply of American gas to European markets is still a very big question." According to the concluded supply contracts, the American gas project, the expert says, is aimed at the markets of Japan, India, and South Korea - that is, not at all to Europe. And Russia has nothing to lose here.

But the opinion of another specialist.

Jay Zawacki is CEO of HavePower, LLC, an infrastructure company for gas production, and a professor of commerce at the University of Maryland. In the article for "The National Interest" He points out that meeting the needs of Europe with American gas is an impossible dream.

Horizontal directional drilling and “fracking” in the oil and gas industry prevented a decline in US production. However, the expert notes with irony, if the Obama administration’s flexible accounting allows “to spend the dollar twice,” then “the same natural gas molecule cannot be spent (that is, burned) a second time.”

In other words, the United States cannot simultaneously solve two tasks: a) to become an energy independent power; b) protect Europe from the “Russian energy bear”.

Therefore, hopes for the export of liquefied natural gas to Europe - just a pipe dream of politicians. In fact, this is nothing to think about.

During 2013, the states of the European Union plus Switzerland, Norway, Turkey and the Balkan states consumed 18,7 trillion. cubic feet of natural gas. According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), 30%, or 5,7 trillion cubic feet, Russia supplied this gas. Can the United States supply so much gas to meet Europe’s huge needs?

This question was asked by an expert. And gave the answer.

There is no chance that the United States can deliver 5,7 trillion cubic meters guaranteed. feet to Europe. Both Obama and Putin are aware of this.

Why can't they? The expert reasonably answered this question.

First, there are no pipelines through which natural gas from the United States would flow to Europe. Therefore, all gas destined for export to Europe will have to be liquefied and then transported across the Atlantic Ocean.

But after all, the process of liquefying natural gas is very energy-intensive, the expert notes. To compress and liquefy a gas, an enormous amount of energy will be needed - and this very energy must be obtained ... by burning natural gas.

To export 5,7 trillion cc feet of LNG, need to burn more than 1,9 trillion. cc ft of natural gas. It turns out that for the supply of 5,7 trillion US cubic feet, the United States will need 7,6 trillion. cc feet

Secondly, in this case America will not have enough gas for domestic consumption.

According to Zawacki, if the US sends 7,6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas to Europe, they will not have natural gas left for their own needs. Already last winter, the United States was faced with the fact that gas reserves in storage facilities fell to a minimum - 800 billion cubic feet. The specified volume would provide the needs of Europe for only fifty days. But if the United States parted with this gas, sending it to Europe, the internal system for delivering natural gas to the United States would not have been able to function. Gas in storages maintains pressure in the gas supply system, and with empty storages in the country, all gas-dependent industry will stop, including “freeze” more than 30% of domestic electricity production.

And what about the notorious shale gas?

But even with the fact that the US has already increased production in shale, the country still imports 1,3 trillion cubic feet of gas per year!

Yes, shale gas production will grow, but at the same time domestic production will require more and more electricity. It should also be taken into account, the expert reminds that the Obama administration, due to environmental motives, continues to fight coal (more precisely, coal-fired power plants). As a result, there will not be enough gas for Europe.

Third, the price.

If you focus on the prevailing prices, then American LNG, taking into account liquefaction and delivery, will cost European buyers more expensive than 9 dollars per thousand cubic feet.

However, there is competition!

For example, Russian gas has a cost of 50 cents per thousand cubic feet. In addition, it is supplied through the finished pipeline in gaseous (non-liquefied) form. Hence, the expert concludes that Russia can significantly undermine the attempts of Americans to export LNG.

Well, and one more thing.

The United States does not have the necessary capacity to liquefy gas and supply it to Europe. Capital expenditures on new objects will be expressed in decades of depreciation.

“And if political problems with Russia are not perceived by Europeans as something that will last for twenty years or longer, then Europe most likely will not give up Russian gas for many more decades and will not enter into long-term contracts for the supply of American LNG. Of course, without such long-term supply contracts, there will not be a basis for financing and building a sufficient number of gas liquefaction enterprises for supplying primarily to Europe. ”


At the end of the article, the expert adds a few more words.

US exports of liquefied gas will not be able to give Europe independence from Russian gas. At the same time, such exports will allow American producers to inflate prices. Yes, this is good for them, but bad for domestic consumers ...

So, what we have in general and in general?

1. Previously, 2020 did not fear Russian competition, even if it was small, with American “shale gas”. This is recognized even by Obama himself, who proclaims himself the savior and benefactor of Europe (these backyards of the great American civilization). By the way, all B. B. Obama's long-term plans are nothing more than propaganda noise, since the presidential election will be held in the United States in late autumn 2016, and Obama is not Roosevelt to pull for a third term. In addition, Republicans are threatening to sue him.

2. The United States will not go on squandering gas across every Europe there, knowing that they themselves will remain without fuel.

3. Gas in the US is produced by private companies, and they are not driven by such crazy people as they are in the White House. Therefore, they will not risk competing with Gazprom. If Obama has a policy ahead of the economy, then everything is there where it should be.

4. Obama is not Harry Potter.

Finally, today's Europe, already full of Russian apple sanctions, will now think one hundred and forty-four times before listening to hegemons like B.H. Obama.

Observed, translated and commented Oleg Chuvakin
- especially for topwar.ru
38 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 22 August 2014 09: 16
    +11
    The coming winter will dot all i.
    1. MSA
      MSA 22 August 2014 09: 29
      +3
      Will ride for warm.
  2. Afinogen
    Afinogen 22 August 2014 09: 24
    0
    Harry Potter got angry because of malice laughing Europeans know how to count, and know what is beneficial to them.
    1. insafufa
      insafufa 22 August 2014 09: 28
      +2
      They got stuck in their brains too laughing
    2. Alex_Popovson
      Alex_Popovson 22 August 2014 12: 29
      +1
      Who will explain to me why "Harry Potter"?
      1. scutum
        scutum 22 August 2014 19: 08
        +3
        And Harry Potter because ... because Barack Husseinovich Obama))))
        but seriously - Husseinich is a fabulous wizard ...
    3. SergeyM
      SergeyM 22 August 2014 16: 06
      +1
      The article did not say a word about it, but I didn’t get any mention that in Europe they began to build terminals for receiving liquefied gas. And without terminals, all Obama’s ravings will remain bullshit.
  3. insafufa
    insafufa 22 August 2014 09: 27
    +5
    By 2020, the pipe to China will give the droid just to see where the gas goes to Europe or China lol and there you look Europeans will be more accommodating in Central Asia they lost gas to China they drove there infa That China is negotiating with Iran on gas supplies through Turkmenistan it will soon be fun laughing
  4. shinobi
    shinobi 22 August 2014 09: 29
    +4
    The thick northern fox in Ukraine is already located in its hole. And it sniffs at the EU. But sales aren’t fall yet. By the winter, I think they will crawl to bow to my elder sister, Russian mistress.
  5. Stiletto
    Stiletto 22 August 2014 09: 34
    +3
    Harry Potter seeks to control the Ukrainian gas transportation system. Cut off coupons from Russia for gas supplies to the EU - on the one hand, and keep Europe for "Yeti" - on the other.
  6. Underwood
    Underwood 22 August 2014 09: 37
    +2
    It seems practicality and cold calculation will prevail. gas is not Polish apples; the gas market is not so easy to redraw. Maybe this is my philistine nonsense, but I think that the gas expansion of America sooner or later involves sabotaging European gas production as such.
  7. dojjdik
    dojjdik 22 August 2014 09: 37
    +2
    there is no point in comparing shale and natural gas; Well, we also sometimes drive bullshit in relation to sanctions - here "McDonald's" was closed well, okay and good, and "Exxon" our oil will pump it in the order of things; funny, so we can do without poppy, but we can't do without exon
  8. mackonya
    mackonya 22 August 2014 09: 53
    +1
    The economy is a stubborn thing, if there is a risk of losing its "profit" more than one politician or the forces he lobbies will not take such a step.
  9. lotar
    lotar 22 August 2014 09: 59
    +5
    In my opinion, we ourselves should stop supplying gas abroad. And for this there is every reason:
    Justification No. 1: Natural resources will end sooner or later.
    Justification No. 2: If hydrocarbon resources are recovered, then not in the volumes in which they are extracted.
    Justification No. 3: Natural resources are becoming more expensive every year and in the near and distant future they will continue to rise in price
    Justification No. 4: In 30-40 years, it is quite possible to start mining in space. But in any case, their extraction will be much more expensive than in terrestrial conditions.
    Justification No. 5: By that time, our children and grandchildren will receive a global tool to influence the rest of the world, which we can now begin to prepare for them.
    Justification No. 6: These resources can be mined in other countries so that our capacities grow and develop.
    Many other reasons can still be given, but I think this is enough.
    1. serohim
      serohim 22 August 2014 10: 33
      -1
      on the 4th point.
      There is an opinion that aliens are sitting on the moon (namely, they were going to get something). And they will not be very happy about our appearance. (Such a fantastic story) =)
      1. Vedmed_23
        Vedmed_23 22 August 2014 16: 47
        -1
        As far as I remember on the moon (including) there is some crap that for one flight there will be enough fuel to supply electric power to the entire planet for almost 2 years. Not sure where I saw, but I'll see. And this crap on the moon a lot. On the ground, it is obtained only in a laboratory, and then in crumbs, at enormous cost.
        1. Vedmed_23
          Vedmed_23 22 August 2014 16: 52
          -1
          I found it, Helium-3, this energy crap.
          1. Vedmed_23
            Vedmed_23 22 August 2014 16: 53
            +1
            Helium-3 is an isotope, that is, an atom in which the same two protons as ordinary helium have not two neutrons, but one. It is found in terrestrial conditions, but very rarely: one gram of substance costs more than $ 1 thousand, and all reserves on Earth are limited to a ton.

            Now, however, no one really needs it, except perhaps a few laboratories. Thermonuclear reactors that are able to use helium-3 do not yet exist: humanity has only just begun to build the first plants, and they will not initially use helium-3, but a mixture of hydrogen isotopes, because tritium and deuterium are easier to ignite. In addition, they have several disadvantages. For example, tritium-hydrogen-3 is radioactive. Although not as strong as spent nuclear fuel (tritium produces beta radiation, and spent nuclear fuel - a complete set from nuclear fragments to gamma rays). But helium-3 is stable, that is, it does not lend itself to decay.
            $ 1 per kilogram of fuel? Inexpensive!
    2. Mareman Vasilich
      Mareman Vasilich 22 August 2014 10: 37
      +1
      There is an opinion that under the current government we will not have to live at the expense of energy. Although it is sad.
    3. matross
      matross 22 August 2014 18: 07
      +2
      lotar
      Export of energy resources brings Russia the main revenues to the budget. And by reserves we are the first in the world. It would not be smart to give a damn about the existing advantages over the whole world ...
      And nature has not forgotten about the global instrument of influence for children and grandchildren - it is fresh water. And here we are again in the lead.
  10. Flanker717
    Flanker717 22 August 2014 10: 22
    +5
    For the first time in my life, I look forward to the winter to see how 404 jumps.
  11. Name
    Name 22 August 2014 10: 33
    +3
    In general, the next show off from Fashington and no more, because the key: ... "The US and the president do not command private companies, do not dictate where they supply gas" ... repeat lol
  12. Mareman Vasilich
    Mareman Vasilich 22 August 2014 10: 35
    +2
    "Obama, like that, all in white, and sprinkles with good intentions. Europe, so, all dumb, listens to him and smiles."
    Yeah, shchazz, and then the fools are sitting there in Europe, albeit in the occupied by the Anglo-Saxons. It’s much easier for the Euroopets to sit on the energy hook in Russia than the Anglo-Saxons.
  13. caprizV
    caprizV 22 August 2014 10: 52
    +2
    Quote: rotmistr60
    The coming winter will dot all i.

    3 months before winter !!! Time is not implacable
    1. serohim
      serohim 22 August 2014 11: 04
      +3
      not horseradish it will not change.
      power in Ukraine seized themselves, and they do not give a damn how many people freeze.Yaki senior leadership is replaceable and they do not care the same. So just freeze people and vse.Primer won: "oh, unwashed maidan all winter defended."
      1. scutum
        scutum 22 August 2014 19: 15
        +2
        you want to say - bounced, did not defend)))
        but Ukraine-tse Europe))) you are dill, slate to help you ... and peas and tsibulya ...
        for the people deserve the government that has ... in this case, the government has a great people ...
        PS New Russia is not Ukraine anymore ...
  14. navodchik
    navodchik 22 August 2014 11: 14
    +2
    Article plus. Five more cents. There is shale gas in Ukraine. They want to launch the gas transportation system under its production. Nadezhda B.Kh. and Company is to defeat (abnormally naturally) the wrong aborigines. What comes out of this is another adventure, it would be nice if it quickly reached Europe.
  15. kergudu straight
    kergudu straight 22 August 2014 11: 15
    +2
    According to the logic of banderlogs, in the winter there will be breathtaking jumps that are obliged to change the poles of the planet and dill will come in the tropics, in which you only need a loincloth, but a bigger club, and there you look from behind the tan, the frame will look at the brothers
  16. steell
    steell 22 August 2014 12: 16
    +2
    There is an opinion that Qatari gas will be a competitor to us, but after U.S. Ukrainian transit takes on itself, which will increase the cost of Russian gas, as a result, Qatar = friend of the United States. We need to look into the future, therefore, we are both in the north and south stream, the Pentagon is in every way obstructing construction. I think the article is a bit narrow.
  17. Vlad5307
    Vlad5307 22 August 2014 12: 20
    +1
    most likely the Americans wanted to intensify the production of shale gas in the southeast of the REGIONAL and sell it to Europe at a "good" price. At the same time, they, of course, do not give a damn about the fact that in this case the mining areas will turn into an ecological desert, poorly adapted for human habitation (therefore, they clean the territory of people so that there are no protests from local residents). Let me remind you once again the motto of today's managers - "nothing personal - just business", and then at least the grass will not grow there !!!!
  18. sherman1506
    sherman1506 22 August 2014 12: 37
    +1
    Therefore, they are breaking into the Donbass, until the last Ukrainian. There are oil shale deposits.
  19. el.krokodil
    el.krokodil 22 August 2014 14: 54
    0
    Quote: navodchik
    Article plus. Five more cents. There is shale gas in Ukraine. They want to launch the gas transportation system under its production. Nadezhda B.Kh. and Company is to defeat (abnormally naturally) the wrong aborigines. What comes out of this is another adventure, it would be nice if it quickly reached Europe.
    article + ... the United States will buy a dill pipe and through it will pump ukrop shale gas into the geyropa .. de facto, and the pipe is dill gas .. and de jure-amer companies ie Amer! .. and it turns out simultaneously -Loses RUSSIA the supply of its gas, money for transit, and leverage over the geyropu .. and the Obama receives all this ie, providing the geyropu with gas he fulfills his promise and receives a pressure tool that he will use as a club laughing what and all the fuss in dill because of this pipe and shale gas deposits .. and the interests of the indigenous population, whether they are pro-Russian or Svidomo, will interest them no more than in their time the problems of blacks or Indians .. for the indigenous population there will be reservations with manual Nazi regime -concentration camps and crematoriums .. sad
  20. bevatec
    bevatec 22 August 2014 17: 33
    0
    Kindergarten or from the "Diamond Hand" - they will not buy lotteries - we will turn off the gas! Gazprom has always bought gas from the Kirghiz and resold it in the tridorogo to Europe. The Kyrgyz were the first to build a gas pipeline to China - they will build it to Europe with a lower price tag - enough to bluff, it's time already turn on the brains. With Miller's salary 2.5 million rubles a day, who are we scaring naked?
  21. Rubicon
    Rubicon 22 August 2014 19: 25
    +1
    Quote: Bevatec
    Kindergarten or from the "Diamond Hand" - they will not buy lotteries - we will turn off the gas! Gazprom has always bought gas from the Kirghiz and resold it in the tridorogo to Europe. The Kyrgyz were the first to build a gas pipeline to China - they will build it to Europe with a lower price tag - enough to bluff, it's time already turn on the brains.With Miller's salary 2.5 million rubles a DAY, we scare someone naked

    Nothing beguiled :) Kirghiz noble gas producers and gas builders negative Maybe the Turkmens with the Uzbeks?
    By the way, Central Asian gas has never been exported in its pure form, they have always tried to burn it in Russia - the calorific value is higher. Yes, and technically problematic.
    It seems that you are not from the Censor, only there they write such nonsense. Or was it irony?
  22. VSC
    VSC 22 August 2014 19: 25
    +1
    And given that shale gas production, due to poor ecology, is preferable on foreign territory, then the Americans will quickly take down the roof of this hut.
  23. IMPEREC
    IMPEREC 22 August 2014 19: 37
    +1
    "Before 2020, Russia should not be afraid of competition, even a small one, with American 'shale gas'" - predictable news. The main question is when will we stop selling raw materials, when will we start to develop our industry and agriculture. For the future of Russia, European sanctions are a blessing, but I'm afraid they will agree and everything will return to normal. We will again sell the future of our children and grandchildren.
  24. Loner_53
    Loner_53 22 August 2014 20: 45
    0
    In March 2014, the United States announced that it would soon begin to supply shale gas to Europe.The storytellers themselves even believe in what they say fool
  25. Gsneru
    Gsneru 22 August 2014 20: 46
    +1
    I think you can’t discount the giant South Pars and others. This which is located on the border of Qatar and Iran. If Amerikosy Assad is removed, the pipeline is guaranteed, respectively, and Europe will not need Russian gas at all.
  26. a.hamster55
    a.hamster55 22 August 2014 21: 25
    0
    You must also download with the mind. To keep warm, you need to ride low and in clothes, and to clean you need to be naked and higher then the dirt will fall off in layers fellow
  27. erofich
    erofich 22 August 2014 22: 04
    +2
    Bullshit is complete. Is it really not clear so far that shale gas has been planned from the Donbass. There, after all, everything was already sold, and even the pipe is being sold now.
  28. vigor1288
    vigor1288 22 August 2014 22: 54
    0
    Oh! Obashka raves once again! We urgently need to call the Colombians, he began to see the withdrawal.
  29. gammipapa
    gammipapa 23 August 2014 00: 40
    0
    The coming winter, Europeans will pay special attention to how Ukraine will be heated. Dungsters do not emit as much heat as gas, as much as this would not be desirable.
  30. Belisarios
    Belisarios 23 August 2014 09: 54
    0
    Everything resembles what is happening in a hospice: a terminally ill patient is lying, pumped up with drugs (Rogulistan), delirious. A kind nurse, who has already copied the dying man's apartment, strokes him on the handle, rubs it on him: "They've invented a new enema in America, they are already driving."
    Something like this.