You guys give to much credit for an export-led, deflactionist country like Germany.
It has been the consumption sinkhole of the world economy since the Aughts. It's demise - better, the demise of his mercantilist economic model will be a godsend to the world economy.
Sadly, it happened thanks NS demise and not € demise, but that's history.
Thanks for your comment. Unfortunately for Germany, 62% of its exports are to other European countries, who rely on Germany to support the EU economically! Would that be called a "circular firing squad"?!
Other countries do not "rely" on Germany to "support" €U economically, they bear German wage devaluation (i.e. Haartz reforms). Germany is not the powerhouse, but the consumption sinkhole of €U.
So no, a German collapse would be a godsend for €U, because without Germany there is no country capable of sabotage a European wage-led development through wage-dumping. That it happened for the demise of NS and not € is, as I said, a tragedy, but not because it provoked Germany collapse.
Not a single illegal alien ferried by the German Lutheran Church to Southern Europe arrives in Germany: it is an asymmetrical war waged by Germany to Southern Europe.
Kelly Greenhill wrote "Weapons of mass migration" to describe this kind of asymmetrical war.
According Italian spooks, Wagner is attempting the same in Libya.
Perhaps the collapse of energy-intensive industry in Europe will make the next winter less deadly, but I doubt it.
Those floating gas terminals sound like juicy targets in any potential conflict.
Speaking of pollution, it appears a large part of the Depeleted Uranium shells the UK has supplied to the Ukraine has been destroyed in Khmelnisky, leading to a 50% increase in gamma radiation in the area, from 95 nSv/h to 150 nSv/h.
Depleted Uranium is a very weak gamma emitter, IIRC 95% of its energy emissions are alpha particles, which are normally harmless when released outside the body, as they can be blocked by clothing and skin. However, when they are released inside the body, say, after inhalation of DU dust or consumption of contaminated foodstuffs, the effects can be truly devastating. Not to mention the toxicity of Uranium as a heavy metal.
How unfortunate for the Banderite regime that the DU shells that were meant to contaminate New Russia aka Eastern Ukraine were instead destroyed in Western Ukraine. Perhaps they will console themselves with the fact that a portion of the dust has spread to Poland, as Poles are another group that Bandera has targeted for genocide.
The article I linked is talking about the winter of 2022-2023, not the late spring of 2023. The relatively low household energy prices in Europe at the moment are due to reduced demand (deindustrialization) and subsidies (ballooning debt/taxes).
During the winter the govts (Belgium) were bailing out all invoices, via social fare or for the richer and entreprises cash, checks, VAT which was at 21% before SMO is decreased and will remain at 6% forever.Though except a few exceptions, no real problem.We will see how next winter will turn warm or colder? For the last 23 years I live here, we had 72 days of winter only (below zero celsius day and night), which is almost nothing. I used to live in Montréal, believe me there we have the same climate as in Moscow or even colder sometime(continental, 3m of snow / year), but not so cold this year as well.
Very informative, and I enjoyed the piece. Well done. Couple of points/questions:
How much of the annual 102 Gcfm produced by USA is from fracking? I've read that there are limited reserves for fracking, and that the reserves will be depleted over the next few years. Will this mean another nail in the coffin of US hegemony? Can you comment on this?
Also, (slightly off the 'natural gas' topic), just how bad can it get in Europe? Will we soon be at the pitchforks in the streets and lamppost lynching stage in the near future?
Thanks for your kind words. This is my first internet article, so I spent a lot of time (too much) on it.
Second question first: The pain will be slow to come, because the governments will use subsidies to pacify those who are hurt. I would look to Greece to guesstimate the response, since Greece has had high (30%) unemployment for a while now. But Greece has a strong tourist industry, so maybe not a good comparison for Germany.
Regarding nat gas in the U.S., annual production of gas is 35 trillion cubic feet per year, or about 1 trillion cubic meters. Just a guess, but I would say that a lot of that is frac gas. But it will not diminish quickly over the next few years. The oil does diminish relatively quickly, but the gas can make its way through the porous rock more easily than the oil. Also, many wells are being fracked multiple times now to improve recovery of oil, and that stimulates gas production.
The industrialized world is running close to the limits of fuels and energy in general now. Reconfiguring will to the downside, to less spending on optional items and activities, as costs of necessities rise.
Will some buy luxuries while others starve and freeze nearby? How will that play out politically. Energy pipelines are critical choke-points for resource wars, and critical assets to have. The Syrian war, instigated by US interests, was supposedly because Syria would not allow construction of a natural gas pipeline to Turkey and on to Europe, which favored US allies.
Not yet really addressed is that resource-exporting countries have been prevented from developing local industry, both through financial/economic manipulation and through acts of war and coercion.
Those of us who are accustomed to having enough in industrialized countries may not be well-protected by the elites who actually make decisions on our behalf...
In the past, the dominant powers made sure that their colonies could not develop their own resources, through manipulation or sheer force. Now that the "colonies" are appropriating their resources, the "powers" are trying to use all means at their disposal to prevent that. The "powers" are finding that they have to backtrack in order to save what remains of their strength. They do so unwillingly, though.
It looks like the "owners" are willing to abandon the people of the "powers" countries like any other chattel. They assume that their "ownership" is absolute and can be maintained. How much of the planet does King Charles III supposedly "own"?
New social contracts need to be renegotiated everywhere, and fairly.
This time really does need to be different. It is a long way down and we need to descend gradually, thoughtfully , fairly and cooperatively to a world with much less energy use per capita.
Hello Piquet! Great article, and well written. I can confirm that RWE Neurath and Neideraussem (north of Kőln) are coming back on line. They've requested servicing of our equipment on their boilers.
I think the only hope for the EU is to forego their "green dreams." The near-term economic outlook looks bleak, with their prospects for peace maybe worse. Sad to see, but they've brought these conditions unto themselves.
My question is why the Greens haven't been marching already? Especially since Germany relies on lignite coal for fuel. Both of those plants are lignite fired, right?
I think your question was rhetorical, but I'll answer it anyway: the Greens march to Creepy Uncle Sam's tune. Their branding was created when Creepy Uncle Sam's primary ambition was keeping Europe weak enough to retain it as a vassal, now the primary ambition is the balkanization of Russia, so the holdover "green" branding is even more dissonant than before.
All greens/ecolo political entities in EU have been created by CIA just after the collapse of USSR, with the purpose to be 'activated'(just in case) if and when necessary for US interests against Russia.They started with very low elections results in the 90's then increased as the green deal narrative(a scam)started to reign in the msm.Many young people with zero knowledge of geopolitics and economy vote for these greens, mainly yuppies or a few ex hippies, all woke etc...99% are usefull idiots, even in these pol parties very few leaders (even elected) if any; understand they are manipulated.Merkel as long she was in power resisted US blackmail to protect Germany eventhough she hates both Russia and Putin like all defeated in two WW germans. Merkel did not care at all about the EU, just a tool to get cheap labour from Eastern Europe and a tool to destroy France still strong real economy in the 90's(and Italy to a lower extent).Once Merkel gone we saw the difference in a few weeks. Greens have been cia activated to destroy their own country but they don't care as like all globalist their goal is to destroy nation state for a EU super state', not to forget their green deal obsession eventhough now these idiots are breaking all carbon emissions records in Europe since they closed their civil nuclear facilities, they use lng now (shale they were supposed to hate a few years before) and even worse coal.Germany is becoming an enviromental disaster (like Poland or worse), this thanks to greenies fith columnists.But it is all about ideology: war is bad, Putin is bad, Russians are...nazis(for sure..) they will not hesitate to escalate to WWIII even if Germany must be destroyed they don't care, in fact they are neocons like Nuland but for different reasons.
Bravo , spot on about the CIA creation of the Green parties. Petra Kelly was half American and interned for a year at the Capitol. Since Capitol internship is an extremely rare privilege, and especially for foreigners, that alone should raise a few eyebrows.
Correct on lignite, from a local source (right across the road). Massive diggers and conveyors. Good question on Greens, maybe they're not too keen on being cold and see no alternative?
On a side note: interesting brown outs in Slovakia(?), due to drooping frequency when the wind speed decreased and cloud cover increased. Nuclear is the key, until fusion comes online (40-ish years). Coal will bridge the gap. Interesting how South Korean utility, KOEN, has built 1 GW X 10 in the past decade. Gangeung being the latest brought online. The Koreans are rather green, natural gas use notwithstanding.
On "natural" gas - I heard somewhere that yes gas is "cleaner" than oil so long as only 1% escapes in its journey from ground to burning. But at 3% it is no better and it can be worse. (I'm not sure what the measure of "clean" was, total Green House effect I guess as CH4 is I presume far worse than CO2.
Can anyone confirm this.
And does that imply that Fracked gas (which in US at least is the common source of LNG) is not so Green as claimed?
Germany (or all Europe). I take the view that China overtook US in the Global Polarity / Popularity stakes some 5 to 8 years ago and we are not observing a US potentially declining but a spiteful and knowing loser. MAGA with emphasis on the Again was a 2016 admission.
So the past 5 years have largely been about the US attempting to stop the rest of the world trading with China. With no influence on Russia, that meant cutting off Europe from Russia as a first step and sticking a great chasm at the end of the OBOR (Ukraine tick, Iran failed).
The US has achieved its goals in Europe, Germany businessmen post NS2 no longer have the international credibility that they spent 70 post war years regaining. But US has failed almost everywhere else (Pakistan and one or two other places are seeing the battle right now).
Regarding frac gas, the gas is not allowed to escape uncontrolled. The methane is flared (burned) to produce carbon dioxide, a much weaker GHG. And the oil producers are incentivized to collect the gas as the value increases. In other words, LNG can take up massive quantities of gas as long as demand (and price) remain strong. Of course, Europe's great decision to ban pipeline gas has greatly increased the relative value of LNG, so it's a self-correcting problem!
Regarding the past 5 years and the U.S. trying to stop trade with China: I think that in the immediate term, it has been the U.S. trying desperately to stop Germany from developing stronger relationships with Russia. Even so important as to cause someone to blow up the Nordstream pipelines. A strong German-Russian business relationship would have been the death of U.S. hegemony. Now the focus is on China, and I think that a Russia-China relationship will take much longer to shake out the U.S. domination. Just my opinion, though.
CH4 is about has an about 200 times stronger effect on heat absorption (than CO2), but smaller absorption bands, so the total effect is somehwat lower. It also breaks down relatively quickly (~10 years I think) in the atmosphere.
That said Greenhouse Gasses have a logarithmic effect on heat retention in the atmosphere.
The more of a GHG is in the atmosphere the less noticable a further increase will be (it will still be a measurable effect, though)
To conclude this in consideration of CH4: Right now there is a miniscule amount of CH4 in the atmosphere, that is why CH4 release will have a dramatic effect on heat retention. Much of CH4 is trapped inside permafrost and underwater frozen reservoirs. That is true danger of a runaway warming, it will trigger activation of self-reinforcing feedback loops which can truly wreck our current equlibrium.
I agree with your assessment of methane's GHG activity. And it is currently present in part-per-billion -- ppb -- in the atmosphere (carbon dioxide is ~420 parts per million, or ppm). Methane releases from the earth are not uncommon, but the major amounts are not in a position to be released any time soon, even with some warming.
First off CH4 is currently present in the atmosphere at 2 ppm, so you are wrong about the "ppb" bit.
Then I kind of disagree with you on the potential release of earthbound CH4, since the permafrost is thawing, and this represents a clear self-reinforcing feedback loop. for which no precedents are there since the inception of modern empiric science, so all of our data and theories come from datapoints about early geological times.
IMHO that is why we can't be sure about anything concerning that matter and should not take it lightly, because these are processes we have almost no control over.
You are right. I saw the units (ppb), but missed the digits (1,890)! My apologies.
As for the worry about the permafrost melting, consider the size of the atmosphere (1.1 x 10^15 cbm). Now tell me how much methane is in the permafrost, and what concentration that would represent in the atmosphere if all of it evaporated?
Then factor in the average residence time of methane in the atmosphere (~9 years), and determine the effect it would have on climate ("30 years worth of weather").
Finally, using your estimate that we have almost no control over this (IMO, I would leave out the "almost"), I don't think you can convince me that I should worry about this. And also bear in mind that back in the ninth to the eleventh centuries, Greenland really was green, and any methane in the permafrost would likely have been released. Whew, I can sleep well tonight!
P.S. I hope I did not sound snippy. That was not my intent. Actually, I had fun with the numbers!
Methane hydrates (slush, essentially) at around 25c and a few hundred feet under water. There's a lot of this at the bottom of the ocean, at just under 25c. As the oceans warm a degree or two, the stuff softens and methane bubbles out of it.
So, undersea methane hydrates are a large & unpopularized source of Global Baking gasification, which are being triggered now by our slow warming of the seas.
Further, there are a lot of pits of this stuff on the ocean floor with a small cap of hydrate over a slightly warmer pool. The cap melts, the entire pit pours up through the ocean column into the air.
Not true. By now it is established that the medieval warm period was a local phenomenon in the North Atlantic region occuring between ~950-1250 AD (viking settlement remains in greenland confirm this). You can search for theories about temp. in other regions during that time and form your opinions then. What you cannot do is choose one region and make an assumption about global climate, because there can be different reasons for local warming than atmospheric GHG increase.
Respectfully, your statements are not correct. For example, "By now it is established that the medieval warm period was a local phenomenon" is only ratified by those with a political agenda. Proxy data for China, for example, shows similar warming during the same period.
But beyond that, you have chosen to focus on an offhand comment I made in passing. I see no disputation from you on the more important quantitative statements that I made.
To simplify the discussion I will reduce things to one point: Even if a large amount of methane was released at one time (think the opposite: Mt. Pinatubo, which definitely impacted the atmosphere for a period of time in the opposite direction), the methane concentration would diminish rather rapidly. Are you saying that our world is so fragile that it would not be able to achieve equilibrium in short order? I'm not asking you to quantify things, just use common, empirical sense. The planet we inhabit is, by many orders of magnitude, more powerful than you can imagine.
BTW, I will continue to sleep well at night! I pray that you can as well.
How effective was this in bringing down the price of NatGas? How effective will it be in allowing EU countries to fill up their storages ahead of the 2023 winter?
Also I heard the Russia had floated a "OPEC for NatGas" a while ago. Has there been any progress on this? Would that shift the power over to the suppliers as it does with Oil?
Did that guy actually give that speech in front of people? If so, then he has no shame (duh, he's a politician!). He actually admitted that they were unable to get quotes on all of the business that they needed (they needed 11.6 Gcbm and they only got offers for 10.9 Gcbm). Of course there were redundant offers on some pieces of business, but there were obviously requirements that NO ONE offered on. What a smashing success!
Now to your really good question about the effect of their tender on market price. The short answer: no effect at all. You can see the price chart (Dutch TTF Natural Gas) at OilPrice.com. For fun, click also on LNG Japan/Korea Marker. Careful of different y-axis range, but they are almost identical for two very different markets. Bear in mind that the price on OilPrice is measured in $/MMBTU. To translate to $/MWh, multiply by 3.41 MMBTU/MWh. Then adjust for currency to get euros (EU27.76/MWh yesterday). Now for the real shock: Dutch TTF is natural gas, pipeline delivery. Look at the two charts on OilPrice: the price is almost the same for both, but Japan/Korea is for LNG, not pipeline gas. Dutch TTF price is 3.7 x higher than it should be for pipeline gas. And this is the (very) low season for gas price! Wait until winter. You may ask "why?"
First, Europe has put itself in a short position on gas. It is a seller's market, and will remain so for some time to come. The price yesterday was ~EU28/MWh, but for June 2020, the price was EU5.60/MWh.
Second, Europe consumes ~470 Gcbm/yr, and the tender was for ~12 Gcbm. That volume is insignificant in the overall supply/demand balance.
Finally, another indication of the farce of this tender is the paucity of the offers. When I traded chemicals, I had a customer who put out an annual tender for one product which had a volume of 1.8 G pounds annually. They restricted their invitations to the 6 most reputable suppliers in order to keep the tender professional. They typically received offers for a total of more than 6 G pounds from the suppliers, three times their requirement. Their business was attractive, and the suppliers were eager to do business with them. The EU tender could not even cover the totality of their requirement.
German is shackled by "Green / Climate Change" politics that commanded by amerikkka (aka Zionist world order), in fact it kills itself by turning off Coal and Nuclear power generation facility. Coal electric generation with its latest technology is very clean already (in term of minimal pollution). "Climate change" is piece of crap aka pseudo science, as you look at 8000 years ago the temperature average was 2-3 deg C higher , with much less human and zero industry,,,, so maybe there is local heat island such in city vs rural, but human activity never change "climate" nor co2... it is solely depend on SUN (and its CICLYC) output which nothing to do with human nor CO2.... in fact Netherland uses CO2 to make its greenhouse greener and plants bigger. Once German out of clutch of amerikkka demands, it will free itself to make prosperous again.
One of the points you made was how Russia was able to pivot to new clients. My understanding that this is true on volume basis, for sure.
Do you have any insight as to the revenue side of the new business? How is the pricing comparable to previous deals with Germany or other EU countries? I can’t find any reliable info on this.
Russia is expanding the capacity of the Power of Siberia pipeline that flows to China. The price of the gas was negotiated prior to startup, and I assume that the value to Russia was good. If it was not valuable to Russia, they probably would not be expanding the project. Regarding value, natural gas is a byproduct of oil exploration. Generally, a price above the cost of transporting the gas to market makes it a profitable venture for the exporter.
Aside from that, Russia and Turkey are in talks to construct a gas line from Russia to Turkey, and the pricing will likely be good for both parties. As a humorous aside, that gas will probably end up being sold into Europe, with nice profit to Turkey.
Finally, Russia is currently exporting LNG, and they are expanding that export capacity. The value of the LNG is likely to exceed the value of pipeline gas (for years to come), so it is an attractive option for Russia. The LNG price (Japan/ Korea Marker -- see Oilprice.com) is currently about four times the U.S. gas price (Henry Hub). That price differential blows out in winter months. I "think" the profit margin is better for the exporter of LNG. ;-)
Thanks Piquet for your article, informative and enjoyable. In the first part there are some omissions as hydro as source for power, with mini and micro turbines you do not need those large water reservoirs. And there is also solar thermic energy and geothermal vast reserves.
The USA gas reserves are unclear on purpose. My guess is that they are smaller than advertised.
A future topic, that could be very interesting, is transportation costs in Europe, instead of focusing in household warming. With a bit of correlation/comparission with rest of the world data
I'll address the last energy type first. Geothermal energy has been used extensively in places where it is readily captured. It cannot be mined (like coal) or economically transported, like natural gas. Sure, some are working on expanding the use of geothermal, but it will likely remain a small contributor to the overall energy picture.
Next up is Concentrated Solar (or solar thermal power). This is a terribly expensive technology that has resulted in numerous bankruptcies, at least in the U.S. It relies on the very dilute nature of solar energy. Hence, the "concentrated" in the name. The concentrators are also famous for killing many thousands of birds, including some birds that are on the endangered list.
Finally, hydroelectric is a proven technology that is, like geothermal, optimal in a small number of locations. New projects are subject to environmentalist objetions because of changes in land use that are deemed inappropriate.
Potential in geothermal energy is huge, could be enough for USA and Mexico demand with proven exploitable sites (most in Mexico) and with the oil drilling equipment getting in desuse and cheaper exploratory devices, the table is set for their growing in the medium future (forties?).
Chile has two huge solar plants, one photovoltaic the other thermal, when the efficiency of the former goes down due to warming of the cells, the other is at its peak. And the USA is not a good example for efficiency...
Hydro is 40% of the renovables worldwide, with huge turbines and enourmous dams. The future is going to smaller turbines and get double production in existing facilities. But, the knack is that those do not need those dam dams, a conducting pipe suffice.
European natural gas under 30 euros per MWh, a first since June 2021
European natural gas continued to fall and hit a new low for nearly two years on Thursday, as the market remained well supplied, with comfortable storage levels in Europe and rising temperatures dampening demand.
Around 2:00 p.m. GMT (4:00 p.m. in Brussels), the Dutch TTF futures contract, considered the European benchmark, was trading at 29.90 euros per megawatt hour (MWh), shortly after reaching 29.85 euros per MWh, a higher price. seen since June 2021.
I love how the press (probably encouraged by the gov't) talks up how great it is that the price is under 30 euros/MWh. Makes it sound like they are really taking care of the average guy(s).
However, if you go back to May 2019 or June 2020, the price was 13.50 and 5.60 euros/MWh. They are counting on short memories!
Regarding the "low" price, remember that gas demand is VERY seasonal, and the summer is generally the low point for price. If the storage caverns cannot be filled by end of the fall, watch out for winter prices! Especially if the winter is cold.
The EU cannot manipulate the price to the low side. They can only manipulate it higher than it should be!
Otherwise I forgot to mention that even 'fix price' contracts are back (engie suspended them in 2022, but the govt was bailing out the difference).
In 2020 it was covid lockdown year though lot of industries were or closed or working at a low capacity level.
But you are right for 2019 and before. My country did not buy lot of RU gas 5 or 6 % no more I think? Mainly from Qatar, Algeria and Norway even from the Netherlands.
I didn’t see you mention the fact that the energy to cool transport and reheat the gas causes 50% energy loss so pipeline gas will always give a huge advantage to any country using it. Lng will remain expensive and double the depletion rate-of the exporting county on their reserves
The cost of refrigeration is significant, so a good number of ships (and all new ships) have dual-fuel engines that can use the off-gas as supplemental fuel to run the engines. Additionally, heat integration at the land-based regasification terminals is a way to conserve energy by, for example, cooling air in gas separation processes (LOX and liquid nitrogen production at the facility).
BTW, I did mention that a lot of energy is needed for the LNG deliveries.
I just received my yearly invoice for natgaz + elec (benelux).To my big surprise, I was expecting the worse, I did not get any increase in gaz(even was refunded) and a very light increase in elec(1.5 euro/month).I pay 6.34 eur/monthly for natgaz and 13.51 for elec.Which means a decrease from before SMO even before covid. My take is govt are hidding real costs to customers for electoral reasons, but increasing national debt to gdp iso.But problem 'joe six pack' does not realize that at all. Flights are overbooked for this coming summer vacations as never seen before.Inflation decreased to 3.3%(anyway it does not matter as salaries, social benefits, pensions are automatically increased by exact nr of inflation,we are lucky in BELUX but it is an exception in the EU and in the World).Not expecting any less warmongering from EU leaders in the coming years as there is in fact little to zero bad consequences.
I was about to say that I want to live where you live...then I remembered that I spent the coldest month of March in my lifetime working at a chemical plant in Rotterdam. I thought I was going to break teeth because my jaws were chattering so much! That was 40 years ago, and I am done with cold weather! But I dearly hope that the politicians stop the war-mongering.
You guys give to much credit for an export-led, deflactionist country like Germany.
It has been the consumption sinkhole of the world economy since the Aughts. It's demise - better, the demise of his mercantilist economic model will be a godsend to the world economy.
Sadly, it happened thanks NS demise and not € demise, but that's history.
Thanks for your comment. Unfortunately for Germany, 62% of its exports are to other European countries, who rely on Germany to support the EU economically! Would that be called a "circular firing squad"?!
Other countries do not "rely" on Germany to "support" €U economically, they bear German wage devaluation (i.e. Haartz reforms). Germany is not the powerhouse, but the consumption sinkhole of €U.
So no, a German collapse would be a godsend for €U, because without Germany there is no country capable of sabotage a European wage-led development through wage-dumping. That it happened for the demise of NS and not € is, as I said, a tragedy, but not because it provoked Germany collapse.
Interesting point... could be that the reason of German pressures on keeping opened the illegal migration routes for "resources"?
Imho no: if you mean immigration in Germany, it is legal and aims to drain braisn.
If you mean illegal one, it is not in Germany and it is an asymmetric war against enemy countries like Italy, Serbia and Hungary.
So... the german luteran churches paying for and controlling the NGO's... cui prodest? I supposed it was to have a lot of manpower...
Not a single illegal alien ferried by the German Lutheran Church to Southern Europe arrives in Germany: it is an asymmetrical war waged by Germany to Southern Europe.
Kelly Greenhill wrote "Weapons of mass migration" to describe this kind of asymmetrical war.
According Italian spooks, Wagner is attempting the same in Libya.
Europe has registered 68000 excess deaths last winter, attributed to the energy crisis.
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2023/05/10/expensive-energy-may-have-killed-more-europeans-than-covid-19-last-winter
Perhaps the collapse of energy-intensive industry in Europe will make the next winter less deadly, but I doubt it.
Those floating gas terminals sound like juicy targets in any potential conflict.
Speaking of pollution, it appears a large part of the Depeleted Uranium shells the UK has supplied to the Ukraine has been destroyed in Khmelnisky, leading to a 50% increase in gamma radiation in the area, from 95 nSv/h to 150 nSv/h.
Source: EU monitoring data https://remap.jrc.ec.europa.eu/Advanced.aspx
Depleted Uranium is a very weak gamma emitter, IIRC 95% of its energy emissions are alpha particles, which are normally harmless when released outside the body, as they can be blocked by clothing and skin. However, when they are released inside the body, say, after inhalation of DU dust or consumption of contaminated foodstuffs, the effects can be truly devastating. Not to mention the toxicity of Uranium as a heavy metal.
How unfortunate for the Banderite regime that the DU shells that were meant to contaminate New Russia aka Eastern Ukraine were instead destroyed in Western Ukraine. Perhaps they will console themselves with the fact that a portion of the dust has spread to Poland, as Poles are another group that Bandera has targeted for genocide.
Excess deaths could be mrna vaccine effects... but don't tell the sheeple...
Possible, but the excess deaths attributed to the cost of energy correlate very strongly with household energy price.
Household energy prices in Western Europe(not the UK), is at his lowest level ever.
I think you you forgot to add (/sarc).
The article I linked is talking about the winter of 2022-2023, not the late spring of 2023. The relatively low household energy prices in Europe at the moment are due to reduced demand (deindustrialization) and subsidies (ballooning debt/taxes).
During the winter the govts (Belgium) were bailing out all invoices, via social fare or for the richer and entreprises cash, checks, VAT which was at 21% before SMO is decreased and will remain at 6% forever.Though except a few exceptions, no real problem.We will see how next winter will turn warm or colder? For the last 23 years I live here, we had 72 days of winter only (below zero celsius day and night), which is almost nothing. I used to live in Montréal, believe me there we have the same climate as in Moscow or even colder sometime(continental, 3m of snow / year), but not so cold this year as well.
Very good article, Piquet.
Very informative, and I enjoyed the piece. Well done. Couple of points/questions:
How much of the annual 102 Gcfm produced by USA is from fracking? I've read that there are limited reserves for fracking, and that the reserves will be depleted over the next few years. Will this mean another nail in the coffin of US hegemony? Can you comment on this?
Also, (slightly off the 'natural gas' topic), just how bad can it get in Europe? Will we soon be at the pitchforks in the streets and lamppost lynching stage in the near future?
Thanks for your kind words. This is my first internet article, so I spent a lot of time (too much) on it.
Second question first: The pain will be slow to come, because the governments will use subsidies to pacify those who are hurt. I would look to Greece to guesstimate the response, since Greece has had high (30%) unemployment for a while now. But Greece has a strong tourist industry, so maybe not a good comparison for Germany.
Regarding nat gas in the U.S., annual production of gas is 35 trillion cubic feet per year, or about 1 trillion cubic meters. Just a guess, but I would say that a lot of that is frac gas. But it will not diminish quickly over the next few years. The oil does diminish relatively quickly, but the gas can make its way through the porous rock more easily than the oil. Also, many wells are being fracked multiple times now to improve recovery of oil, and that stimulates gas production.
You are too much focused on Germany which is only 20% of the EU economy.
80% does not care much about LNG or Russian pipelines and is happy to see German decline, especially the Eastern Europeans.
Southern Europeans too.
Germany is officially in recession as of today. Good riddance.
Thank you Putin for cutting the gas and German green retards for shutting NPPs off.
Thank You, Piquet.
The industrialized world is running close to the limits of fuels and energy in general now. Reconfiguring will to the downside, to less spending on optional items and activities, as costs of necessities rise.
Will some buy luxuries while others starve and freeze nearby? How will that play out politically. Energy pipelines are critical choke-points for resource wars, and critical assets to have. The Syrian war, instigated by US interests, was supposedly because Syria would not allow construction of a natural gas pipeline to Turkey and on to Europe, which favored US allies.
Not yet really addressed is that resource-exporting countries have been prevented from developing local industry, both through financial/economic manipulation and through acts of war and coercion.
Those of us who are accustomed to having enough in industrialized countries may not be well-protected by the elites who actually make decisions on our behalf...
Hi Dr. John,
In the past, the dominant powers made sure that their colonies could not develop their own resources, through manipulation or sheer force. Now that the "colonies" are appropriating their resources, the "powers" are trying to use all means at their disposal to prevent that. The "powers" are finding that they have to backtrack in order to save what remains of their strength. They do so unwillingly, though.
It looks like the "owners" are willing to abandon the people of the "powers" countries like any other chattel. They assume that their "ownership" is absolute and can be maintained. How much of the planet does King Charles III supposedly "own"?
New social contracts need to be renegotiated everywhere, and fairly.
This time really does need to be different. It is a long way down and we need to descend gradually, thoughtfully , fairly and cooperatively to a world with much less energy use per capita.
Surplus Energy Economics analyzes this well. https://surplusenergyeconomics.wordpress.com/
Hello Piquet! Great article, and well written. I can confirm that RWE Neurath and Neideraussem (north of Kőln) are coming back on line. They've requested servicing of our equipment on their boilers.
I think the only hope for the EU is to forego their "green dreams." The near-term economic outlook looks bleak, with their prospects for peace maybe worse. Sad to see, but they've brought these conditions unto themselves.
Thank you TBP,
My question is why the Greens haven't been marching already? Especially since Germany relies on lignite coal for fuel. Both of those plants are lignite fired, right?
I think your question was rhetorical, but I'll answer it anyway: the Greens march to Creepy Uncle Sam's tune. Their branding was created when Creepy Uncle Sam's primary ambition was keeping Europe weak enough to retain it as a vassal, now the primary ambition is the balkanization of Russia, so the holdover "green" branding is even more dissonant than before.
All greens/ecolo political entities in EU have been created by CIA just after the collapse of USSR, with the purpose to be 'activated'(just in case) if and when necessary for US interests against Russia.They started with very low elections results in the 90's then increased as the green deal narrative(a scam)started to reign in the msm.Many young people with zero knowledge of geopolitics and economy vote for these greens, mainly yuppies or a few ex hippies, all woke etc...99% are usefull idiots, even in these pol parties very few leaders (even elected) if any; understand they are manipulated.Merkel as long she was in power resisted US blackmail to protect Germany eventhough she hates both Russia and Putin like all defeated in two WW germans. Merkel did not care at all about the EU, just a tool to get cheap labour from Eastern Europe and a tool to destroy France still strong real economy in the 90's(and Italy to a lower extent).Once Merkel gone we saw the difference in a few weeks. Greens have been cia activated to destroy their own country but they don't care as like all globalist their goal is to destroy nation state for a EU super state', not to forget their green deal obsession eventhough now these idiots are breaking all carbon emissions records in Europe since they closed their civil nuclear facilities, they use lng now (shale they were supposed to hate a few years before) and even worse coal.Germany is becoming an enviromental disaster (like Poland or worse), this thanks to greenies fith columnists.But it is all about ideology: war is bad, Putin is bad, Russians are...nazis(for sure..) they will not hesitate to escalate to WWIII even if Germany must be destroyed they don't care, in fact they are neocons like Nuland but for different reasons.
Bravo , spot on about the CIA creation of the Green parties. Petra Kelly was half American and interned for a year at the Capitol. Since Capitol internship is an extremely rare privilege, and especially for foreigners, that alone should raise a few eyebrows.
Creepy George you wrote? :)
Correct on lignite, from a local source (right across the road). Massive diggers and conveyors. Good question on Greens, maybe they're not too keen on being cold and see no alternative?
On a side note: interesting brown outs in Slovakia(?), due to drooping frequency when the wind speed decreased and cloud cover increased. Nuclear is the key, until fusion comes online (40-ish years). Coal will bridge the gap. Interesting how South Korean utility, KOEN, has built 1 GW X 10 in the past decade. Gangeung being the latest brought online. The Koreans are rather green, natural gas use notwithstanding.
Cheers from Cheyenne!
Excellent piece - thanks. I learnt lots.
On "natural" gas - I heard somewhere that yes gas is "cleaner" than oil so long as only 1% escapes in its journey from ground to burning. But at 3% it is no better and it can be worse. (I'm not sure what the measure of "clean" was, total Green House effect I guess as CH4 is I presume far worse than CO2.
Can anyone confirm this.
And does that imply that Fracked gas (which in US at least is the common source of LNG) is not so Green as claimed?
Germany (or all Europe). I take the view that China overtook US in the Global Polarity / Popularity stakes some 5 to 8 years ago and we are not observing a US potentially declining but a spiteful and knowing loser. MAGA with emphasis on the Again was a 2016 admission.
So the past 5 years have largely been about the US attempting to stop the rest of the world trading with China. With no influence on Russia, that meant cutting off Europe from Russia as a first step and sticking a great chasm at the end of the OBOR (Ukraine tick, Iran failed).
The US has achieved its goals in Europe, Germany businessmen post NS2 no longer have the international credibility that they spent 70 post war years regaining. But US has failed almost everywhere else (Pakistan and one or two other places are seeing the battle right now).
Hi m droy,
Regarding frac gas, the gas is not allowed to escape uncontrolled. The methane is flared (burned) to produce carbon dioxide, a much weaker GHG. And the oil producers are incentivized to collect the gas as the value increases. In other words, LNG can take up massive quantities of gas as long as demand (and price) remain strong. Of course, Europe's great decision to ban pipeline gas has greatly increased the relative value of LNG, so it's a self-correcting problem!
Regarding the past 5 years and the U.S. trying to stop trade with China: I think that in the immediate term, it has been the U.S. trying desperately to stop Germany from developing stronger relationships with Russia. Even so important as to cause someone to blow up the Nordstream pipelines. A strong German-Russian business relationship would have been the death of U.S. hegemony. Now the focus is on China, and I think that a Russia-China relationship will take much longer to shake out the U.S. domination. Just my opinion, though.
CH4 is about has an about 200 times stronger effect on heat absorption (than CO2), but smaller absorption bands, so the total effect is somehwat lower. It also breaks down relatively quickly (~10 years I think) in the atmosphere.
That said Greenhouse Gasses have a logarithmic effect on heat retention in the atmosphere.
The more of a GHG is in the atmosphere the less noticable a further increase will be (it will still be a measurable effect, though)
To conclude this in consideration of CH4: Right now there is a miniscule amount of CH4 in the atmosphere, that is why CH4 release will have a dramatic effect on heat retention. Much of CH4 is trapped inside permafrost and underwater frozen reservoirs. That is true danger of a runaway warming, it will trigger activation of self-reinforcing feedback loops which can truly wreck our current equlibrium.
Thank you Darkmoon,
I agree with your assessment of methane's GHG activity. And it is currently present in part-per-billion -- ppb -- in the atmosphere (carbon dioxide is ~420 parts per million, or ppm). Methane releases from the earth are not uncommon, but the major amounts are not in a position to be released any time soon, even with some warming.
Thanks for the reply.
First off CH4 is currently present in the atmosphere at 2 ppm, so you are wrong about the "ppb" bit.
Then I kind of disagree with you on the potential release of earthbound CH4, since the permafrost is thawing, and this represents a clear self-reinforcing feedback loop. for which no precedents are there since the inception of modern empiric science, so all of our data and theories come from datapoints about early geological times.
IMHO that is why we can't be sure about anything concerning that matter and should not take it lightly, because these are processes we have almost no control over.
You are right. I saw the units (ppb), but missed the digits (1,890)! My apologies.
As for the worry about the permafrost melting, consider the size of the atmosphere (1.1 x 10^15 cbm). Now tell me how much methane is in the permafrost, and what concentration that would represent in the atmosphere if all of it evaporated?
Then factor in the average residence time of methane in the atmosphere (~9 years), and determine the effect it would have on climate ("30 years worth of weather").
Finally, using your estimate that we have almost no control over this (IMO, I would leave out the "almost"), I don't think you can convince me that I should worry about this. And also bear in mind that back in the ninth to the eleventh centuries, Greenland really was green, and any methane in the permafrost would likely have been released. Whew, I can sleep well tonight!
P.S. I hope I did not sound snippy. That was not my intent. Actually, I had fun with the numbers!
Methane hydrates (slush, essentially) at around 25c and a few hundred feet under water. There's a lot of this at the bottom of the ocean, at just under 25c. As the oceans warm a degree or two, the stuff softens and methane bubbles out of it.
So, undersea methane hydrates are a large & unpopularized source of Global Baking gasification, which are being triggered now by our slow warming of the seas.
Further, there are a lot of pits of this stuff on the ocean floor with a small cap of hydrate over a slightly warmer pool. The cap melts, the entire pit pours up through the ocean column into the air.
Best sleep to all!
Not true. By now it is established that the medieval warm period was a local phenomenon in the North Atlantic region occuring between ~950-1250 AD (viking settlement remains in greenland confirm this). You can search for theories about temp. in other regions during that time and form your opinions then. What you cannot do is choose one region and make an assumption about global climate, because there can be different reasons for local warming than atmospheric GHG increase.
Respectfully, your statements are not correct. For example, "By now it is established that the medieval warm period was a local phenomenon" is only ratified by those with a political agenda. Proxy data for China, for example, shows similar warming during the same period.
But beyond that, you have chosen to focus on an offhand comment I made in passing. I see no disputation from you on the more important quantitative statements that I made.
To simplify the discussion I will reduce things to one point: Even if a large amount of methane was released at one time (think the opposite: Mt. Pinatubo, which definitely impacted the atmosphere for a period of time in the opposite direction), the methane concentration would diminish rather rapidly. Are you saying that our world is so fragile that it would not be able to achieve equilibrium in short order? I'm not asking you to quantify things, just use common, empirical sense. The planet we inhabit is, by many orders of magnitude, more powerful than you can imagine.
BTW, I will continue to sleep well at night! I pray that you can as well.
Not sure if Piquet is reading the comments, but I wanted to ask about the EC/EU initiative called AggregateEU which pools gas bids from EU countries to match them to suppliers (https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/speech_23_2782).
How effective was this in bringing down the price of NatGas? How effective will it be in allowing EU countries to fill up their storages ahead of the 2023 winter?
Also I heard the Russia had floated a "OPEC for NatGas" a while ago. Has there been any progress on this? Would that shift the power over to the suppliers as it does with Oil?
Hi Phoenix,
Did that guy actually give that speech in front of people? If so, then he has no shame (duh, he's a politician!). He actually admitted that they were unable to get quotes on all of the business that they needed (they needed 11.6 Gcbm and they only got offers for 10.9 Gcbm). Of course there were redundant offers on some pieces of business, but there were obviously requirements that NO ONE offered on. What a smashing success!
Now to your really good question about the effect of their tender on market price. The short answer: no effect at all. You can see the price chart (Dutch TTF Natural Gas) at OilPrice.com. For fun, click also on LNG Japan/Korea Marker. Careful of different y-axis range, but they are almost identical for two very different markets. Bear in mind that the price on OilPrice is measured in $/MMBTU. To translate to $/MWh, multiply by 3.41 MMBTU/MWh. Then adjust for currency to get euros (EU27.76/MWh yesterday). Now for the real shock: Dutch TTF is natural gas, pipeline delivery. Look at the two charts on OilPrice: the price is almost the same for both, but Japan/Korea is for LNG, not pipeline gas. Dutch TTF price is 3.7 x higher than it should be for pipeline gas. And this is the (very) low season for gas price! Wait until winter. You may ask "why?"
First, Europe has put itself in a short position on gas. It is a seller's market, and will remain so for some time to come. The price yesterday was ~EU28/MWh, but for June 2020, the price was EU5.60/MWh.
Second, Europe consumes ~470 Gcbm/yr, and the tender was for ~12 Gcbm. That volume is insignificant in the overall supply/demand balance.
Finally, another indication of the farce of this tender is the paucity of the offers. When I traded chemicals, I had a customer who put out an annual tender for one product which had a volume of 1.8 G pounds annually. They restricted their invitations to the 6 most reputable suppliers in order to keep the tender professional. They typically received offers for a total of more than 6 G pounds from the suppliers, three times their requirement. Their business was attractive, and the suppliers were eager to do business with them. The EU tender could not even cover the totality of their requirement.
OK, I am getting too sarcastic. Time to stop.
German is shackled by "Green / Climate Change" politics that commanded by amerikkka (aka Zionist world order), in fact it kills itself by turning off Coal and Nuclear power generation facility. Coal electric generation with its latest technology is very clean already (in term of minimal pollution). "Climate change" is piece of crap aka pseudo science, as you look at 8000 years ago the temperature average was 2-3 deg C higher , with much less human and zero industry,,,, so maybe there is local heat island such in city vs rural, but human activity never change "climate" nor co2... it is solely depend on SUN (and its CICLYC) output which nothing to do with human nor CO2.... in fact Netherland uses CO2 to make its greenhouse greener and plants bigger. Once German out of clutch of amerikkka demands, it will free itself to make prosperous again.
Good article, Piquet, thank you.
One of the points you made was how Russia was able to pivot to new clients. My understanding that this is true on volume basis, for sure.
Do you have any insight as to the revenue side of the new business? How is the pricing comparable to previous deals with Germany or other EU countries? I can’t find any reliable info on this.
Look forward to your next piece.
Peter
Thank you Peter,
Russia is expanding the capacity of the Power of Siberia pipeline that flows to China. The price of the gas was negotiated prior to startup, and I assume that the value to Russia was good. If it was not valuable to Russia, they probably would not be expanding the project. Regarding value, natural gas is a byproduct of oil exploration. Generally, a price above the cost of transporting the gas to market makes it a profitable venture for the exporter.
Aside from that, Russia and Turkey are in talks to construct a gas line from Russia to Turkey, and the pricing will likely be good for both parties. As a humorous aside, that gas will probably end up being sold into Europe, with nice profit to Turkey.
Finally, Russia is currently exporting LNG, and they are expanding that export capacity. The value of the LNG is likely to exceed the value of pipeline gas (for years to come), so it is an attractive option for Russia. The LNG price (Japan/ Korea Marker -- see Oilprice.com) is currently about four times the U.S. gas price (Henry Hub). That price differential blows out in winter months. I "think" the profit margin is better for the exporter of LNG. ;-)
Thanks Piquet for your article, informative and enjoyable. In the first part there are some omissions as hydro as source for power, with mini and micro turbines you do not need those large water reservoirs. And there is also solar thermic energy and geothermal vast reserves.
The USA gas reserves are unclear on purpose. My guess is that they are smaller than advertised.
A future topic, that could be very interesting, is transportation costs in Europe, instead of focusing in household warming. With a bit of correlation/comparission with rest of the world data
Hi Julio,
Thank you for the kind words!
I'll address the last energy type first. Geothermal energy has been used extensively in places where it is readily captured. It cannot be mined (like coal) or economically transported, like natural gas. Sure, some are working on expanding the use of geothermal, but it will likely remain a small contributor to the overall energy picture.
Next up is Concentrated Solar (or solar thermal power). This is a terribly expensive technology that has resulted in numerous bankruptcies, at least in the U.S. It relies on the very dilute nature of solar energy. Hence, the "concentrated" in the name. The concentrators are also famous for killing many thousands of birds, including some birds that are on the endangered list.
Finally, hydroelectric is a proven technology that is, like geothermal, optimal in a small number of locations. New projects are subject to environmentalist objetions because of changes in land use that are deemed inappropriate.
Potential in geothermal energy is huge, could be enough for USA and Mexico demand with proven exploitable sites (most in Mexico) and with the oil drilling equipment getting in desuse and cheaper exploratory devices, the table is set for their growing in the medium future (forties?).
Chile has two huge solar plants, one photovoltaic the other thermal, when the efficiency of the former goes down due to warming of the cells, the other is at its peak. And the USA is not a good example for efficiency...
Hydro is 40% of the renovables worldwide, with huge turbines and enourmous dams. The future is going to smaller turbines and get double production in existing facilities. But, the knack is that those do not need those dam dams, a conducting pipe suffice.
European natural gas under 30 euros per MWh, a first since June 2021
European natural gas continued to fall and hit a new low for nearly two years on Thursday, as the market remained well supplied, with comfortable storage levels in Europe and rising temperatures dampening demand.
Around 2:00 p.m. GMT (4:00 p.m. in Brussels), the Dutch TTF futures contract, considered the European benchmark, was trading at 29.90 euros per megawatt hour (MWh), shortly after reaching 29.85 euros per MWh, a higher price. seen since June 2021.
https://www.rtbf.be/article/le-gaz-naturel-europeen-sous-30-euros-le-mwh-une-premiere-depuis-juin-2021-11199589
My question is: is the EU manipulating (rigging the pricing, or if not, how can that be possible after all the dooms we heard frome some 'experts')?
I love how the press (probably encouraged by the gov't) talks up how great it is that the price is under 30 euros/MWh. Makes it sound like they are really taking care of the average guy(s).
However, if you go back to May 2019 or June 2020, the price was 13.50 and 5.60 euros/MWh. They are counting on short memories!
Regarding the "low" price, remember that gas demand is VERY seasonal, and the summer is generally the low point for price. If the storage caverns cannot be filled by end of the fall, watch out for winter prices! Especially if the winter is cold.
The EU cannot manipulate the price to the low side. They can only manipulate it higher than it should be!
Thanks Piquet were you the one writting about energy on the Saker blog earlier?
No, I will go look. Thanks for the heads-up! I haven't been to Saker for ~3 months.
Saker closed his blog in theory forever.
Otherwise I forgot to mention that even 'fix price' contracts are back (engie suspended them in 2022, but the govt was bailing out the difference).
In 2020 it was covid lockdown year though lot of industries were or closed or working at a low capacity level.
But you are right for 2019 and before. My country did not buy lot of RU gas 5 or 6 % no more I think? Mainly from Qatar, Algeria and Norway even from the Netherlands.
Same in southern Europe countries except Italy.
https://www.rtbf.be/article/baisse-du-prix-de-lenergie-faut-il-choisir-un-tarif-fixe-ou-variable-11195717
I didn’t see you mention the fact that the energy to cool transport and reheat the gas causes 50% energy loss so pipeline gas will always give a huge advantage to any country using it. Lng will remain expensive and double the depletion rate-of the exporting county on their reserves
The cost of refrigeration is significant, so a good number of ships (and all new ships) have dual-fuel engines that can use the off-gas as supplemental fuel to run the engines. Additionally, heat integration at the land-based regasification terminals is a way to conserve energy by, for example, cooling air in gas separation processes (LOX and liquid nitrogen production at the facility).
BTW, I did mention that a lot of energy is needed for the LNG deliveries.
Is This gpovanman? I've missed your The van says.........
I just received my yearly invoice for natgaz + elec (benelux).To my big surprise, I was expecting the worse, I did not get any increase in gaz(even was refunded) and a very light increase in elec(1.5 euro/month).I pay 6.34 eur/monthly for natgaz and 13.51 for elec.Which means a decrease from before SMO even before covid. My take is govt are hidding real costs to customers for electoral reasons, but increasing national debt to gdp iso.But problem 'joe six pack' does not realize that at all. Flights are overbooked for this coming summer vacations as never seen before.Inflation decreased to 3.3%(anyway it does not matter as salaries, social benefits, pensions are automatically increased by exact nr of inflation,we are lucky in BELUX but it is an exception in the EU and in the World).Not expecting any less warmongering from EU leaders in the coming years as there is in fact little to zero bad consequences.
Hi Natoistan,
I was about to say that I want to live where you live...then I remembered that I spent the coldest month of March in my lifetime working at a chemical plant in Rotterdam. I thought I was going to break teeth because my jaws were chattering so much! That was 40 years ago, and I am done with cold weather! But I dearly hope that the politicians stop the war-mongering.
It's good to live where the weather doesn't try to kill you.