Early on 21st July a giant Liquid Natural Gas Tanker (LNG) appeared out of the mist in Cartagena harbour. Nothing surprising, you may say. Only that it was the 1st of hundreds of GNF’s Frack-Gas cargoes from the USA.
Frack-Gas is the same as normal gas, only that it’s up to 3 times more lethal than coal for the climate. Because extracting it requires fracturing shale in thousands of small wells with ultra toxic chemicals causing massive methane leaking.(see footnote 1)
Now by Trump’s executive order all pretence at methane control, climate change mitigation, water or environmental protection have been abolished in a toxic mix of false patriotism, corruption and insatiable greed. (see footnote 2)
Due to lack of control, hidden subsidies and free money there is a glut of frack gas in the US. The plan is to force it on Europe, even at a massive loss and with incalculable climate damage, as part of their trade and arms war against Russia, which supplies 30% of European gas.
A whole range of liquefaction plants are being rushed into operation in Louisiana and Texas, until now three huge lines are in operation in Sabine Pass, with whole sections devoted to Spain’s Gas Natural Fenosa and Shell who have perhaps foolishly signed 20 year ‘pay up whether you take the gas or not’ contracts.
Economically the business makes no sense, US shale gas ‘costs’ up to $7.85 to $8.35 per mmbtu delivered to the customer in Rotterdam, compared to $ 5.35, (May 2017 European price). Yet the first consignments are already arriving. First they discount the liquefaction cost of $3.00, calling it a ‘sunk cost’ (a huge undeclared loss, presumably guaranteed ), cutting the price to near european levels. Then there are ”bribes and arm twisting” via US ”influence”.
When the first cargo of US Frack Gas arrived in the new regasification plant in Poland in June 2017 in a wave of patriotic anti Russian media the energy minister Naimski claimed Gazprom’s 30% in the European market could be significantly reduced, ‘with U.S. exporters also covering the transport costs to ”balance the price with the European market” Hey presto, ignoring the climate, the planet and our health.. it’s ”profitable”.(see footnote 3)
The Spanish based Gas Natural Fenosa have proudly acquired three new LNG tankers for the Frack Gas business. Spain has 7 regasification plants when it needs only one or two. It doesn’t need more gas. The 2 pipelines from Algeria can supply up to 20.6 bcm of the 30 to 40 bcm (depending on the economy) requirements of Iberia. Cheap Algerian or Qatari LNG can supply the rest .see footnote 4
But Spanish energy companies have never been transparent, run by an oligarchy in league with government they have been embroiled in a series of scandals worth billions of euros in institutional corruption. Government ministers have ensured massive handouts and the suppression of the solar/wind sector and a large number of them later receive lucrative honorary board membership.
There is a suspicion that Gas Natural Fenosa and Iberdrola will impose expensive US frack-gas on Spanish consumers, using its control of the end market and in agreement with a government always servile to US interests.
There has been a campaign, frustrated until now by French refusal, to build a new pipeline, the Midcat, to France, indeed the first 100 kilometres was already laid. The EU agreed to pay up, on the spurious arguments of linking Algerian gas to Northern Europe or creating a ‘Barcelona Hub’ to pump imported and regasified LNG north see footnote 5
The latest on The Midcat project is that French refusal may be overcome with Macron in power, but the EU special interest grants need renewing and will be decided in autumn 2017
However if any corrupt Spanish ministers think they can get anonymous payments to their anonymous offshore accounts by forcing a pipeline through the Pyrenees to sell expensive planet-destroying US frack gas they should perhaps think again. The Midcat pipeline would probably become a new DAPL style conflict on both sides of the border.
Footnotes… much more information
Footnote One: Methane escapes turn the ‘gas advantage’ negative. Because burning gas is more efficient than coal, it provides a 50% advantage in terms of emissions of CO2 emitted per unit of energy. However that is only half the story because of the methane that escapes into the atmosphere during the exploration, production, storage, and distribution phases of the gas life-cycle: in other words all of the stages upstream of the power station.
There is a large difference in fugitive emissions between conventional and unconventional methods of gas extraction. A large reservoir of natural gas may require only a handful of platforms to extract the underlying resource, which typically is under pressure and therefore relatively simple to release and capture.
By contrast, with unconventional sources such as shale gas, the resource is present as bubbles of gas within shale rock formations. Extraction is extremely challenging, it requires the injection of sand, water, chemicals and lubricants under pressure, and thousands of well-heads may be required to locate and extract significant quantities of gas. The potential for leaks, whether accidental or deliberate, is correspondingly greater.
Atmospheric monitoring from the early 1990s, before fracking became a major issue, demonstrates that conventional gas production is associated with methane losses of at least 1%, so the advantage of gas over coal is 25%, not 50%. Second liquefaction is extremely energy intensive adding 20-25% to the carbon footprint, which means that Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) is no better than coal from a climate change perspective.
The situation with shale gas is far worse. Satellite data demonstrates fugitive emissions that are an order of magnitude greater during the extraction and storage phase, with average losses, including distribution representing 6-8% of production. The figure of 6% makes shale gas two times worse than coal from a climate change perspective. A Cornell University scientist’s claims that oil and gas development is so harmful to the climate that methane emissions and oil and gas production in general need to be cut back immediately to avoid a “global catastrophe” are adding more fuel to the scientific debate over the climate implications of shale oil and gas production.
Fossil fuels production is the largest methane pollution source in the U.S., and ignoring those emissions will lead to a climate change “tipping point” from which there is no return, Cornell environmental biology professor Robert Howarth said in a statement
http://www.eeb.cornell.edu/howarth/publications/f_EECT-61539-perspectives-on-air-emissions-of-methane-and-climatic-warmin_100815_27470.pdf And a very recent study from Harvard, published in Geophysical Research Letters by Turner et al used satellite data over the US and found a 30% increase in methane releases since 2002.
Footnote 2: The question is that the US wants to sell off its Frack Gas and annoy the Russians and is willing to pay covertly, as well as all the following: by tax breaks, endless loans to bankrupt gas companies at near zero interest rates, repealing of the recent Obama era law of even minimum requirements of reporting methane emissions, allowing fracking companies: exemption from the Clean Water Laws; (WARNING Fracking An Inconvenient Truth Watch Learn about Fracking Shale Gas) abandoning of tens of thousands of leaky frack wells as their production quickly declines below commercial viability; abandoning lakes and ponds of ultra toxic fracking liquids, often due to strategic bankruptcy; the negation of any compensation for poisoned water supplies nationwide; legal blocking of claims for compensation for deaths, cancers, many other ailments and psychological and business damage related to fracking; the destruction of fragile habitats and ecosystems; local species extinctions… and etc!
see Shale cowboys: fracking under Trump – (VPRO documentary – 2017) This is the business the European consumer is being asked to condone by accepting US Fracking Gas to cook their lunches and take their morning showers.
Footnote3: Approximate gas prices in Rotterdam, May 17. in mmbtu May 2017 Euro price $ 5.35, US Frack Gas Price LNG $2.25 HH (US market price) + $3.00 Liquefaction cost + transpòrt $0.60 / to $1.10 $/mmbtu + regasifaction cost $2.00 total ‘real price’ before discounts = $7.85 to $8.35
When the first cargo of US Frack Gas arrived in the new regasification plant in Poland in June 2017 in a blaze of patriotic anti-Russian media the energy minister Naimski claimed Gazprom’s 34% of the European market in 2016 could be significantly reduced, ‘with U.S. exporters paying liquefaction costs and also covering the transport costs to ”balance the price with the European market”. This is politics not business and the geo-political rivalry has a deadly side to it.
Apart from the risk of nuclear annihilation by a war with Russia the wars in Syria and Iraq may well be also about competing pipeline projects. And now a world glut of gas is threatening the revenues of all players, the ‘need’ is to ‘take out’ some suppliers i.e. whole nations could be sabotaged in a cynical game to increase prices. This may be part of the irrational attacks on Qatar and the perennial threats to Iran. Also LNG production facilities in Egypt, Libya and Yemen are no longer operating, as of mid-2016, both Yemen and Libya are suffering open ended US military ‘interventions’ and it is doubtful when and whether LNG exports from these three countries could restart.
footnote 4 The idea put out that Algerian gas flowing to northern Europe could sabotage the Russians’ gas business is absolutely ludicrous. The capacity of the 2 pipelines to Spain is about 20.6 bcm and maybe 75% is used, supplying only half the Iberian demand, while the EU consumption is 525.5 bcm.
Algeria could hardly increase supply anyway, it is desperately trying to bring more gas online to meet power shortages and a one million a year population increase. Fracking in Algeria has been abandoned for now due to a massive brave popular uprising and the realization that millions of gallons of water would be needed for each of thousands of small wells, impossible in the desert. Algerian gas is 2 or 3 times more climate friendly than US frack gas.
So the plan to create the ‘Barcelona hub for Europe’ depends on importing LNG, which Northern Europe could import directly and more cheaply to their own underused regasification facilities. If the Midcat pipeline from Spain to France goes ahead it will be a political decision of more than dubious economic worth pushed through by the US to spite the Russians (and the Germans who are at present outraged by unnecessary US declarations that they would sanction any German company working on the Nord Stream undersea pipeline between Germany and Russia).
Energy companies stole over 4 billion euros with politicial connivance
Similar to the Contract for Difference mechanism being used to fund infrastructure in the U.K.’s electricity market reform, the transition plan (costes de transición a la competencia, or CTC in Spanish) guaranteed the utilities €36 ($41 USD) per megawatt-hour over 10 years. The scheme came into effect in 2001, but was halted in 2006 when the spot price for energy rose above €53 ($60) per megawatt-hour and utilities reaped windfall profits. By that point, four of the five utilities had profited far in excess of what was agreed upon in the scheme. Endesa (now part of Enel) topped the list with an overpayment worth €1.56 billion ($1.76 billion).Then came Iberdrola with €1.16 billion ($1.31 billion), Viesgo with €434 million ($490 million), Union Fenosa with €275 million ($311 million), and Hidrocantábrico with €155 million ($175 million).
footnote 6 Flood of Fracking Gas from US to Arrive in Spain #NoAlFrackGasDelTrump
…Many questions remain unanswered, for example:
- Why do we buy fracking gas that can be three times as harmful as coal for the climate?
- Why has there been zero public consultation or participation in a decision which will seriously affect our lives?
- Why have 20-year contracts been signed, ignoring the climate change crisis?
- Why have they agreed to pay for the gas for 20 years anyway even if they do not pick it up?
- How can it be justified to buy at a more expensive price a product obtained with subsidies, social deception and the suspension of environmental water protection laws?
- Were there commissions to anonymous tax havens, as usually happens in the fossil fuels industry?
- How can you justify constructing the Cheniere Creole Trail Gas Pipeline which is to supply the gas for Gas Natural Fenosa through an unprotected coastal marsh of outstanding environmental importance?
The ‘second train’ in Sabine Pass, Louisiana, where frack gas is liquefied for Shell and Gas Natural Fenosa. The company, Cherniére, claim to have ‘improved the unique coastal environment’.
Europe gas consumption 2016 in bcm
- Demand 525 .540
Net imports 286 .301
- Import Needs 292 .307
- Russian imports 165
Pipeline imports (North Africa,
Azerbaijan, Iran) 55
- LNG Imports 72.262
- LNG exports (Norway) 6
The next Frack Gas arrival for Gas Natural was
Latest news from LNG, LPG and Crude Oil markets. … Castillo De Santisteban is expected to discharge her Sabine Pass cargo at Rovigo, Italy on 11-September.
REFERENCES ON METHANE LEVELS IN FRACK GAS
Allen, D.T., V.M. Torres, J. Thomas, D.W. Sullivan, M. Harrison, A. Hendler, S.C. Herndon, C.E. Kolb, M.P. Fraser, A.D. Hill, B.K. Lamb, J. Miskimins, R.F. Sawyer and J.H. Seinfeld. 2013. Measurements of methane emissions at natural gas production sites in the United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences doi: 10.1073/pnas.1304880110
Brandt, A.R., G.A. Heath, E.A.Kort, F.O’Sullivan, G. Petron, S.M. Jordaan, P. Tans, J. Wilcox, A.M. Gopstein, A. Arent, S. Wofsy, N.J. Brown, R. Bradley, G.D. Stucky, D. Eardley and R. Harriss. 2014. Methane leaks from North American gas systems. Science 343: 733-735.
Burnham, A., J. Han, C.E. Clark, M. Wang, J.B. Dunn, and I. Palou-Rivera. 2012. Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of shale gas, natural gas, coal and petroleum. Environmental Science and Technology 46: 619-627.
Omara, M., M.R. Sullivan, X. Li, R. Subramanian, A.L. Robinson, and A.A. Presto. 2016. Methane Emissions from Conventional and Unconventional Natural Gas Production Sites in the Marcellus Shale Basin. Environmental Science and Technology 50: 2099-2107.
Sanchez, N. and D.C. Mays. 2015. Effect of methane leakage on the greenhouse gas footprint of electricity generation. Climatic Change 133: 169-178.
Schaefer, H., S.E. Fletcher, C. Veidt, K.R. Lassey, G.W. Brailsford, T.M. Browmley, E.J. Dlugokencky, S.E. Michel, J.R. Miller, I. Levin, D.C. Lowe, R.J. Martin, B.H. Vaughn, and J.W.C. White. 2016. A 21st-century shift from fossil-fuel to biogenic methane emissions indicated by 13CH4. Science 352: 81-83.
Schindell, D.T., G. Faluvegi, D.M. Koch, G.A. Schmidt, N. Unger, and S.E. Bauer. 2009. Improved attribution of climate forcing to emissions. Science 326: 716-718.
Zavala-Araiza, D., D.R. Lyon, R.A. Alvarez, K.J. Davis, R. Harriss, S.C. Herndon, A. Karion, E.A. Kort, B.K. Lamb, X. Lan, A.J. Marchese, S.W. Pacala, A.L. Robinson, P.B. Shepson, C. Sweeney, R. Talbot, A. Townsend-Small, T. Yacovitch, D.J. Zimmerle, and S.P. Hamburg. 2015. Reconciling divergent estimates of oil and gas methane emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112: 15597-15602.
Gas Natural Fenosa’s LNG Fleet
|Tanker||Delivery year||Capacity (100%) in m3||Chartered by Gas Natural Fenosa|
|CASTILLO DE VILLALBA||2003||138,162.68||Since 15 November 2003|
|CATALUNYA SPIRIT||2003||138,119.52||Since 1 August 2003|
|IBERICA KNUTSEN||2006||138,148.17||Since March 2009|
|RIBERA DEL DUERO KNUTSEN||2010||173,410.00||Since March 2014|
|CADIZ KNUTSEN||2014||138,122.00||Chartered from UFG on numerous occasions since 2010, according to demand|
|GASLOG SARATOGA||2014||155,092.00||Since January 2016, for one year|
|SEISHU MARU||2014||155,695.59||Since January 2016, for one year|
|LA MANCHA KNUTSEN||2016||176,300||Since September 2016|
- A recent study from Harvard, published in Geophysical Research Letters by Turner et al used satellite data over the US and found a 30% increase in methane releases since 2002.
- **UPDATE: The Cornell paper is now available in final, published format here: “Methane and the greenhouse-gas emissions footprint of natural gas from shale formations.”[PDF]
- Stop Frack Oil! Stop Fossil Fuels! ..Save Earth for our Kids!
- First-Ever US Shale Gas Export To Hit Brazil’s Shores With Sabine
- Repsol gana 5% con ‘Fracking’ Argentina
- HUGE SUN TAX OUTLAWS USE OF SOLAR ENERGY IN SPAIN
- The Methane Bomb: New Proof that Frack Gas is Twice as Bad as Coal for Climate
- Watch: River Explodes Into Flames From Methane Coming From Nearby Fracking Sites
- Fracking water causes Cancer: Here’s the proof
- Repsol causes worst ever Fracking Earthquake
- Chris Hedges: Death by Fracking
- Fracking caused 5.3 Quake in La Habra, Los Angeles, closing Disneyland
- 70m toxic frack barrels pumped into California aquifer
- #Fracking Spain Report: Millionaire exposes himself in Public
- Fracking Resistance spreads
- Fracking for ‘tight oil’..huge toxic boom in US.
- BBC changes fracking story to help ‘deniers
EN TWITTER…https://twitter.com/search?q=%23+NoAlFrackGasDelTrump.. #NoAlFrackGasDelTrump