The ships full of gas waiting off Europe's coast:
The huge tankers are waiting. Off the coasts of Spain, Portugal, the UK and other European nations lie dozens of giant ships packed full of liquefied natural gas (LNG). Cooled to roughly -160C for transportation, the fossil fuel is in very high demand. Yet the ships remain at sea with their prized cargo.
After invading Ukraine in February, Russia curtailed gas supplies to Europe, sparking an energy crisis that sent the price of gas soaring. That led to fears of energy shortages and eye-watering bills for consumers.
[...] So why are ships loaded with LNG just hanging around Europe, exactly? The answer, as you might have guessed, is a little complicated.
Someone else who has watched the accumulation of vessels is Fraser Carson, a research analyst at Wood Mackenzie. This month, he counted 268 LNG ships on the water worldwide - noticeably above the one-year average of 241. Of those currently at sea, 51 are in the vicinity of Europe.
He explains that European nations plunged into a gas-buying spree over the summer that aimed to fill onshore storage tanks with gas. This was to ensure that heaps of fuel would be available to cover energy needs this winter.
The original target was to fill storage facilities to 80% of their total capacity by 1 November. That target has been met, and exceeded, far ahead of schedule. The latest data suggests storage is now at nearly 95% in total.
Imported LNG has played a key role in getting Europe to this point.
But as LNG continues to be brought ashore, demand for facilities that heat the liquid and turn it back into gas remains high. There aren't very many such plants in Europe, partly because the continent has long relied on gas delivered via pipelines from Russia instead.
On top of this bottleneck, less gas is getting used up in Europe than it otherwise might at present because the weather has been very mild well into October.
Plus, as Antoine Halff, co-founder of Kayrros notes, industrial activities that rely on gas have relaxed. This is something he and his colleagues track by scouring satellite images of factories. "There's been a very dramatic reduction in cement and steel production in Europe," he says.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Revek on Thursday October 27 2022, @09:35PM (7 children)
They really thought they had the upper hand on energy in Europe. Now they blew up their own pipeline and are stuck at the bottom of a deep tactical hole. They went from super power to third world real quick.
This page was generated by a Swarm of Roaming Elephants
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 28 2022, @12:27AM (4 children)
The USA blew up the pipeline.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Friday October 28 2022, @01:42AM (3 children)
Citations?
I figure you're probably right - let's say 75% probability. But, is there any proof, or at least some highly suggestive evidence? Anything better than "anonymous sources claim blah blah blah"? We could do probabilities on NATO command, or the UK, or any of the EU countries, or Russia, or even an OPEC member nation. Any evidence, though?
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 28 2022, @08:32AM (1 child)
So far as I can tell, the only evidence the USA did it is that Biden said he was going to.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 28 2022, @09:41AM
But, what did Jill say? Biden doesn't wear the pants in the Biden household.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Saturday October 29 2022, @08:11AM
Of course there's about as much evidence that the USA did it as there is evidence that Russia did it. Or any other country with military submarines.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by driverless on Friday October 28 2022, @05:17AM
There was also a helluva lot of luck in there from the very mild (so far) winter. Like the winter of 1945-46, a catastrophe was averted by much milder-than-normal weather.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by mcgrew on Friday October 28 2022, @05:21PM
When Russia first attacked Ukraine, I said "attacking Afghanistan destroyed the USSR, maybe attacking Ukraine will destroy Russia." I'm still hoping that's right. That total idiot Putin (who Trump said was a genius for invading) has guranteed that Ukranians will passionately hate Russians for generations; if, that is, Russia survives.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 5, Interesting) by istartedi on Thursday October 27 2022, @09:55PM (4 children)
I was kind of wondering how they would deal with the fact that the LNG will gradually go back to gas as they wait. Did some reading [wikipedia.org]. Long story short, vessels may use the gas that boils off as fuel--many are dual fuel powered using diesel and/or NG to fire a boiler and drive a steam turbine. As long as they aren't delayed too long, they don't use too much gas because of course the tanks are insulated; but every day that goes by is a little less cargo that can be delivered. Because they can use the gas for fuel, it seems that only a hand full of ships have been fitted with systems to re-liquify the gas. Were that the case, it would consume diesel power anyway so there isn't much point. The article even mentions that powering the vessel entirely from boil-off gas is an option considered, since it's cleaner than diesel.
I've often seen tanker trucks at the local filling station and contemplated the possibility that the tanker might ironically run out of gas, perhaps not being able to poach cargo because it was either the wrong fuel or they lack the proper hose coupling. I have no idea what actually happens in that case, other than the tanker truck driver being very embarrassed and possibly losing his job or even his CDL. LNG ships, OTOH, seem to be living the dream--you're driving the tanker so you've got incredible range. Of course it's not free and I'm sure the accountants track it somehow.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Thursday October 27 2022, @11:20PM (1 child)
"you're driving the tanker so you've got incredible range."
I seem to recall they spent an absurd amount of money on a terrible movie based in part on this premise... where the post apocalypse bad guys... had a diesel tanker they'd been sailing around in, using it's cargo as fuel, for generations.
Yea... Waterworld... Kevin Costner vs the 'the smokers' because you know... the bad guys with the diesel tanker smoked, and diesel vehicles had smokey exhaust, and smoking is bad and they were bad, and their ship was the Exxon Valdez ... which was bad. Oh and they had lots of guns too, and they had a religion, and the leader was a "Deacon"... I'm mean they didn't actually say they were republican conservatives, but they kind of did, loudly, and repeatedly. If "Drill baby, Drill" or "MAGA" had been in the lexicon when it released I'm sure it would have been their rallying call.
It wasn't actually THAT awful a movie really, but the villains were such over-the-top caricatures that it was hard to get past it, and the movie had no intention of letting you get past it either.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Friday October 28 2022, @01:47PM
Who are you kidding? It was a 90s "action film" the only good ones were so bad that they became classics. Waterworld wasn't that bad and it certainly wasn't that good.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by MIRV888 on Friday October 28 2022, @12:30AM
I bet it explodes quite spectacularly.
(Score: 3, Informative) by hendrikboom on Saturday October 29 2022, @12:30AM
LNG ships use the evaporating gas to fuel the refrigerator that keeps the gas liquid.
If there's a leak, the leaked gas blows away with the wind.
It doesn't even end up contaminating beaches the way crude oil does.
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Thursday October 27 2022, @10:18PM
There was a lot of LNG floating around with no confirmed buyers, just speculation. Once Russia screwed the pooch there suddenly appeared lots of buyers.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 2) by MIRV888 on Friday October 28 2022, @12:28AM (2 children)
The storage field pressure specs are suggestive. Plus they're written by egghead engineers. Dial those limestone formations up. Problem solved.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Friday October 28 2022, @05:25PM (1 child)
"egghead engineers"? Are you lost, little one? Or did you just bring your uneducated self here to troll S/N's engineering contingent?
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by MIRV888 on Friday October 28 2022, @10:55PM
I worked in natural gas supply for 5 years. You don't overpressure storage fields.
(Score: 1) by Coligny on Friday October 28 2022, @02:50AM (4 children)
Ok, so where is lalaland and where is reality.
Because most governemenr in yurop claim there will be power outage this winter because of the lack of LPg and the US destruction of Nordstream 1 and 2…
If I wanted to be moderated by mor0nic groupthinking retards I would still be on Digg and Reddshit.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Opportunist on Friday October 28 2022, @06:12AM (1 child)
Not to mention that the price for natural gas is still triple that of a year ago.
Something doesn't quite add up.
(Score: 3, Informative) by quietus on Friday October 28 2022, @05:52PM
Gas prices steadily declined from €340 per MwH in August to €100 Thursday. The normal price, 2 years ago, was €50 per MwH. Spot prices for delivery in 3 months time stand at €100; spot prices for delivery in a year's time at €150.
Personally I think those prices will drop further, to about €70 per MwH come Spring (March/April): Europe's LNG import infrastructure is only *beginning* to be built out -- the Netherland's first (additional) floating LNG terminal only started operating begin October, while Germany's first 2 will start in December: and there are a total of 19 ordered across Europe.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday October 28 2022, @05:51PM (1 child)
It's almost like they identified a problem then took steps to mitigate it!
(Score: 1) by Coligny on Saturday October 29 2022, @02:53AM
Yes, we know, nordstream 1 and 2 were blown up.
If I wanted to be moderated by mor0nic groupthinking retards I would still be on Digg and Reddshit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 28 2022, @02:59AM (13 children)
Restart the cement factories, you will need concrete for air-raid bunkers.
That's the optimistic scenario, in which Russians don't actually start lobbing nukes around; if nukes start flying, with or without gas or concrete, it no longer matters anyway.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 28 2022, @03:24AM
Alternatively, export the gas to Russia as humanitarian aid - they'll need it once NATO starts blowing up their infrastructure.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by Opportunist on Friday October 28 2022, @06:14AM (11 children)
If Russia is actually stupid enough to even attempt to launch one missile (big if since they probably know better than the rest of the world what state their nukes are in, and considering that the army where the responsible apparachik at least had to assume that they see some use, whoever is in charge of the nukes could sensibly assume that they'll never be used... I'd be very surprised if the Uran in the nukes ain't been fenced to Iran by now), the stories about Moscow will start with "where you see this big crater now, there used to be a beautiful city".
(Score: 5, Insightful) by c0lo on Friday October 28 2022, @10:21AM (10 children)
No, it won't.
If Putin glasses Kiev, then either the rest of the world keeps its cool and makes an international pariah from Russia for the foreseeable future (even Xi will drop his "frienship", byebye UN security council for Russia) or there will be nobody in this world to tell or listen to stories about beautiful cities. The latter is more likely.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2, Redundant) by Opportunist on Friday October 28 2022, @10:26AM (9 children)
You're presupposing that the Russian nukes can actually launch. At this point, I'm kinda sure even Putin doubts this.
(Score: 4, Informative) by c0lo on Friday October 28 2022, @10:54AM (1 child)
Russia and weapons of mass destruction [wikipedia.org]
Even only half of that on both sides is enough to wipe out the humanity in the nuclear winter to follow. [eurekalert.org] (note: the linked is pre-COVID).
And I guarantee you that at least the ones on the nuke subs are functional.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Friday October 28 2022, @01:33PM
You'd still need enough dimwits to be stupid enough to actually execute an order like that.
And remember, Russians have children, too. And they want to see them grow up.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Thexalon on Friday October 28 2022, @12:27PM (4 children)
They only need 1 of their several thousand to actually work.
I think, however, their actual plan if they think they really need to do something desperate is to blow up the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant and claim the Ukrainians did it. Nobody will really believe that claim, but it will maybe sow just enough doubt to prevent a retaliatory strike by NATO. There have been lots of signs of them making preparations to do something like that, such as capturing and kicking out of the area both the plant director and his deputy, and maintaining absolute secrecy about everything going on in and around it.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Opportunist on Friday October 28 2022, @01:31PM
It will probably not be enough for a retaliation strike but it's very likely enough to nix every bars holding back the delivery of heavy artillery to Ukraine.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday October 28 2022, @10:09PM (2 children)
Which would be incredible stupid because it will have too little influence on the tactical situation - a, say, 30 km diameter area will be denied to both of the opponents, too little to influence the entire front. If not used as a pretext to escalate beyond conventional weapons, there's no strategic advantage either.
Playing nasty buggers, the Russian would have a higher tactical advantage if blowing the Nova Kakhovka dam upstream Kherson, the ensuing floods would make an unpassable terrain from the area downstream for at least 6 months. Medium and long term, they'd shoot themselves in the foot letting Crimea without water, but if the Ukranian army captures Kherson and starts advancing south, you can bet the Russians will do it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday October 28 2022, @11:37PM (1 child)
They're also gearing up diplomatic cover to do that, yes.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Sunday October 30 2022, @08:29AM
Any diplomatic option and credibility the Russians had went out the window a long, long while ago. At this point, Putin could claim that at noon the sun is in the sky and nobody would believe it without going outside to take a look for themselves.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday October 29 2022, @12:19AM (1 child)
Also consider that if Putin gives such an order, it's quite possible that he'll slip on some tea.
He isn't THAT well liked even in Russia these days.
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Saturday October 29 2022, @09:34AM
No, he would "retreat to his dacha for some much needed vacation", only to "return and hand over the reins to some valued successor as he decides to retire from the burden of the office" as was the staple of Soviet times when Soviet leaders were to be ousted.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by quietus on Friday October 28 2022, @06:49PM
Before the war, gas flowed from Russia through Eastern Europe into the rest of Europe. Now gas flows from Western Europe into Eastern Europe (with the exception of Hungaria).
Something similar is, or might be, happening with the electricity network. Before the war, the Ukrainian high voltage network was connected to the Russian network, not to the EU network. That was changed in 3 weeks time at the beginning of the war.
If you want to reach the no-emissions-by-50 rules of the EU, emissions-free electricity will be a keystone: and nuclear might play an important role there. The thing you have to consider there, though, is how quickly the alternative -- energy transport through hydrogen, will develop; and how cheap it will be compared to the long-term investment in nuclear power plants. Your best bet there might be to invest in higher capacity lines bringing excess NPP power from Western to Eastern Europe, through EU coordination.
What the political implications of all this might be, I don't know: but note that Nordstream I was built at least partly because of recurring 'problems' with the winter transport of gas into the Western European market.