What I was actually looking forward to, was a discussion of how appropriate this technology was.
I have no doubt, fleets of like vessels will be effective at collecting gas from the ocean floor, concentrating it, and sending it to remote markets to burn. I have no doubt, the overall energy output will only release about half the carbon dioxide that would be spewed by coal plants producing the same amount of power.
No doubt, it will also leak a fair amount of methane directly into the atmosphere from the production wells themselves. Since methane is an even more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, hundreds of these Southern Hemisphere gas production vessels, unencumbered by any form of environmental regulation because they do not produce anything within the waters regulated by any country, may well warm the Southern Hemisphere even more than burning such huge amounts of gas warms the Northern Hemisphere energy markets.
Here is the Kewaunee Nuclear Generating Station, which I recently encountered while scouting the Lake Michigan shoreline for a potential home site:
This power station has a perfect operating record, but was closed in 2013 because it could not compete with the cost of electricity generated from fracked natural gas.
Some of you no doubt approve. However we replaced electrical power generated by nuclear energy (15% of the carbon dioxide produced by coal) with natural gas (50% of the carbon dioxide produced by burning coal). Thus carbon dioxide emitted by electricity generation increased 333%. Multiply that by all the idled nuclear stations in the USA, and this country has gouged a large wound into the globe - as did both Germany and Japan, when they both stopped using nukes. NONE of these three large energy consuming countries replaced nuclear with renewable energy, gas and coal pretty much made up the difference.
I cannot help thinking that this was not a good change.