Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Andrew MacKillop on Russian sanctions

For discussions of events and conditions not necessarily related to Peak Oil.

Andrew MacKillop on Russian sanctions

Unread postby Apollo » Mon 14 Apr 2014, 05:06:26

From Energy Matters:

Political herd thinking is at least as skewed and dangerous as Wall Street herd thinking, enabling politicians to airily dismiss all “minor details”. Europe’s energy transport and oil refining infrastructures, for starters, have been adapted to and based on large, reliable supplies of Russian oil and gas, for decades. Claiming this can be “switched’ in an eyeblink of time is nonsense but politicians operate in that cloud cuckoo domain, especially at times of panic.

The consensus view of energy-economists, not politicians, is that it would take at least ten years for even the most industrially and technically advanced EU countries, starting with Germany, to significantly reduce Russian energy dependence and significantly diversify supply sources, including American gas supply. And this would be on the understanding that heroically massive financing was first made available, to satisfy the political fantasy.


I do not agree with everything this guy writes, but I surely like they scope from which he considers these things. So far only the German government has shown to be awere of the risks sanctions on Russia impose. All the ex-USSR countries seem happy to cut their energy ties, even if that means economic suicide.
Apollo
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu 10 Apr 2014, 14:30:31

Re: Andrew MacKillop on Russian sanctions

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Mon 14 Apr 2014, 08:04:23

Apollo - I agree but even with his not so positive view it seems he may be under the same delusion he criticizes some politicians for: "... and significantly diversify supply sources, including American gas supply." The US is a net NG importer...we only produce 93% of the NG we consume. Even the most optimistic projections I've seen don’t get the US to a position of having excess NG production. We may be drilling a lot of shale wells but folks need to get a sense of how much NG we consume: in 2013 it was 2 TRILLION cft more than we produced. Or about 5.5 BILLION cfpd. And where are we heading today: since 2006 US NG consumption has increased 19% and is still on an upwards track. Even with an increase in shale gas drilling I’ve seen no one project we’ll ever been producing more NG then we will be consuming. Short of a demand killing recession, of course. But that would also kill the drilling programs.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Andrew MacKillop on Russian sanctions

Unread postby westexas » Mon 14 Apr 2014, 09:24:00

Based on the Citi Research estimate that the underlying decline rate in existing US dry processed natural gas production is 24%/year, in order to maintain a dry production rate of 66 BCF/day for four years, we would have to replace the productive equivalent of all of Russia's 2012 natural gas production over the next four years.
westexas
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 248
Joined: Tue 04 Jun 2013, 06:59:53


Return to Geopolitics & Global Economics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests