LNG AS A SOLUTION OR AS AN ANCHOR?
LNG AS A SOLUTION OR AS AN ANCHOR?
It is very common to hear people speak without the slightest knowledge about energy, having the floor and affirming things that they have never experienced.
In this case, LNG, which is essential to know if there really is availability to export from the regions of the world that produce gas, (first point).?
?What is answered only, a resounding NO!.
Then secondly, ?We must understand what is developing terminals?? Regasification and how long it takes.
Also to investors (if any)
?How soon do they get a return?
It is variable:
1 ? ? Profitability: it is linked to the legal certainty of the nations that have the resource and the laws for the LNG trade (something that only happens in developed countries).
2 ? ? Economic Capitalization: In different reports, industry highlights mention the incredible potential of this product, but from today to 5 years.?
But they make it clear and affirming that in 10 or 20 it will no longer be a business.
?RISKY FOR INVESTORS!
"Which lowers the chances of investments reaching the sector.
In countries with capacity but without infrastructure like Argentina, here is the evidence."
3?? ?What investment does an LNG terminal require?
From 3,000 to 10,000 million dollars.
?How long does its construction take?
From 24 to 60 months without interruptions and continuously.
4 ? ? How many ports with operating terminals are there?
There are currently 83, spread over 23 countries.
?Which have a total capacity of 572 million tons of weight (1,276 million cubic meters of LNG).
In the nine months of records from January to September, the demand for LNG from European countries increased dramatically, according to data provided (IEA) by the ICIS analysis group.
For example, demand in France increased by 88% compared to the same period in 2021; in the Netherlands, 109%, and in Belgium, 157%.
"However, Europe's thirst for LNG is having negative consequences for countries in other parts of the world that import the fuel in large volumes. Prices have skyrocketed and there is less LNG on the market, making it a much more affordable option. less viable for the poorest countries."
5?? How many methane tankers are there today?? (November 2022-q4).
Around 600 in activity.
REALITY
A methane tanker starts at 100,000 m3 to 266,000 m3, which is the maximum size supported by architecture based on maritime safety.
The "average" 74% of vessels are up to 180,000 m3 in size and the remaining 26% up to 266,000 m3.
CALCULATION?
We put as an average a ship of 180,000 m3 for 600 methane tankers existing in the world, the figure gives us 108,000,000 m3 of transport power.
The compression of the product is 600 times when it reaches 192° (Celsius) and remains in LNG state for transportation.
That then regasification will restore its state of consumption (natural gas).
So multiplying 108 million m3 by 600 gives us 64,800,000,000 m3 (although there are considerable atmospheric losses as in oil in this process).
Reference:
"Mexico has 60 billion m3 of annual consumption and
Germany alone consumes 96 billion m3 of gas."
Apart from the fact that 11% of the ships are available and unloaded on western soil (the rest with contracts).
"In other words, there are 7 billion m3 available."
6 ? ? How many regasification units are there in operation today???
(November 2022-q4).
Currently, there are 23 regasification plants in Europe (including six in Spain), a country that has another five that are under construction or hibernated (in the case of Gijón) and the planned 24 which are completely stopped, "it is to be assumed since the demand together with the Risky Capitalization are the ones who set the beginning of the construction".
领英推荐
NOTE: "The compression of the product is 600 times when it reaches 192° (Celsius) and remains in LNG state for transportation.
Then the regasification will restore its state of consumption (natural gas)".
7 ? ? News of international consumption:
The European Community (countries included) consumes 490 billion m3 annually. (source is EIA).
"That volume must go down and we cannot look for the replacement of the gas by means of LNG, which regasification process is very inefficient, in addition to handling a polluting product."
ANALYSIS
A ceiling on the use of LNG energy is estimated until 2030 and then a sharp drop in consumption, due to the transition to clean energy.
Counting from the moment of the investment (2023) to the moment of its financing (2025 to 2028), leaving a variable return (depending on the markets) of 2 to 5 years in the best of cases.
!NON-VIABLE!.
FALSE PROMISES
The United States promises to offset Europe's move away from dependence on Russia, by sending reserves EXISTING??
?Of Gas by transporting by LNG?.
The same LNG that had been removed from the list of renewables, as it is considered fossil energy.
LOGISTICS
People generally talk about a product and its market value without considering Logistics.
?Where today the price of moving 50 empty ships from Asia and taking them to the United States to load can increase the value between 16% and 19%.
Then you have to lower it in the regasification unit..
?Exist?
They exist at 4% of the amount produced or then there is the option of storage for 13% (which do not exist in those dimensions of need).
COP26 ANECDOTE
"Where the same needy Germany and the rest of the West removed gas from the list of renewables because it came from fossil fuels."
But that fragile double standard in 2022 included it again and the coal that was reused "while we ignore what happens."
So it is a fallacy that they talk about the environment and that they will dispense with Russian energy, if they continue to buy it in rubles or look for alternative markets like Qatar today.
MEASUREMENT INCONSISTENCY
Where do we find Shell that generates profits 3 times more than its own annual projections and believes that it distributes among the few VIP shareholders with benefits to the liquidation of dividends.
"Situation that gives them the benefits of war."
REFLECTION
Wouldn't it be better if the companies that finance the war by buying from Russia compensate for the losses due to the rise in average international inflation?
Or that they invest in the energy transition betting on projects that are waiting for a tangible investment?
There are technologies that do not make it possible and allow companies that emit high pollution to be compensated, to distribute their compensation portfolios in real and direct projects.
What allows investments in clean practices to grow and the volume in the underlying flow of the economies of countries that do not have energy as a strong point, are revitalized with the CIRCULARITY of liquidity in their macroeconomy.? Which increases its GDP and allows companies to consume clean energy, while at the same time reducing their polluting emissions.
In the meantime …
"They continue to bleed the world dry for their consumer ambitions, with logical solutions just a click away."
Solar Dev Solar | EV Charging | Energy Economics
2 年Thanks for this Diego. It really applies here in Canada as many are advocating at solving short term problem with long term solutions