Logo
Registered Members Login:
   
Forgotten Your Details? Click Here To Recover +
Welcome to ShareScene - Talk Shares And Take Stock With Australia's Sharemarket Community - New Here? Click To Register >

21 Pages (Click to Jump) V   1 2 3 4 > »    
 
  
Reply to this topic

CSG Discussion
triage
post Posted: Jun 20 2014, 08:03 AM
  Quote Post


Posts: 3,019
Thanks: 1040


In Reply To: mcart117's post @ May 28 2014, 03:14 PM

I sometimes worry that I am too simplistic and bleak in my view of Mr Putin's regime but what little involvement I have had with it causes me to regularly start twirling around shouting "danger!, danger!!, Will Robinson!!!" whenever I hear people assuming that the Russian regime is just another country. In my view it is not: its goals are at odds with "our's" and the only saving grace is that its leadership is more or less rational.

And I understand that NATO would currently be engaging in both overt and covert propaganda against Russia so you do need to view any comments from its command through that prism.

But the fact is that whilst Joe McCarthy totally stuffed things up with his blundering witch-hunt for commies, he was actually right that the Soviets were using American citizens to further its own causes. Likewise I have previously read assessments that the Russians are agressively using various lobby groups in the West to undermind the growth of the unconventional gas sector, using fracking as its focus. In Australia the campaign has been brilliantly effective to date: you only have to see how a crowd of several thousand people were able to be brought together for weeks on end to stop Metgasco from drilling a single exploration well in an old quarry and how the gutless members of the conservative NSW government folded so easily in appeasing a deeply conservative shock jock.

Anyway here is an article reporting the views of the boss of NATO that the Russians are undertaking "a sophisticated disinformation campaign aimed at undermining attempts to exploit alternative energy sources such as shale gas". Mr Putin surely knows that the Soviet era failed primarily because the regime ran out of money and he surely knows that his regime's strength is entirely reliant on the money and influence obtained through selling its hydrocarbons. In my view it is totally believable that his spooks are going all out in trying to hinder the development of any substitute source of hydrocarbons for Asia and Europe.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/fr...chief-says.html



--------------------
"The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent." John Maynard Keynes

"The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought." Rudiger Dornbush

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Aristotle
 
triage
post Posted: Jun 4 2014, 08:18 AM
  Quote Post


Posts: 3,019
Thanks: 1040


Here's an article that questions how robust the proposal to begin exporting US shale gas is. Of course if you trawl the internet you can always find someone who is promoting the point of view that you favour, and I have not heard of this newspaper or this author before, but it at least the piece seems reasonably written ...

http://journal-neo.org/2014/05/12/washingt...oom-going-bust/

(The heading though appears not to marry too closely with the generalised nature in the body of the article (??)).

I am not suggesting that no export facilities for shale gas will get developed in the US but I continue to think that there will be at best a handful of them that will get built rather than the dozens currently being touted as possible.



--------------------
"The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent." John Maynard Keynes

"The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought." Rudiger Dornbush

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Aristotle

Said 'Thanks' for this post: mcart117  
 
mcart117
post Posted: May 28 2014, 03:14 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 383
Thanks: 74


In Reply To: triage's post @ May 27 2014, 07:00 PM

Thanks Triage, interesting thoughts. I agree about Putin wanting to stick it to the West, and who can blame him really? And I only posted the other one because of the contained irony. I don't think the science behind it is necessarily robust, and even if it were, it would take decades for anyone to take a blind bit of notice. smile.gif

 
triage
post Posted: May 27 2014, 07:00 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 3,019
Thanks: 1040


In Reply To: mcart117's post @ May 27 2014, 01:31 PM

hi macca

Regarding the Russia China gas deal the general view in the mainstream media does seem to be that it is a victory for Mr Putin and a setback for Australian gas exporters. Maybe. But it will be a few years before any gas flows from Siberia and a lot can change in a few years in the gas sector. For instance it was not too many years back that both Woodside and BHP were attempting to build their own facilities on the West Coast of the US to send Australian gas there. Not only did they both lose out to the public opinion and regulators but BHP subsequently rashly bought into some second rate shale fields in the States and now the US is hoping to export gas from its shale (again, like the Russia China deal, at this stage it is years away from fruition).

Even if the Russia China deal goes ahead as touted I suspect that it is fairly assured that Qld has got itself a substantial long-term industry in the production and export of csg. As far as I know all the csg export facilities being built at Gladstone have gone ahead on the basis of long-term contracts and with major customers holding substantial amounts of equity. Perhaps some of the second stage developments in Gladstone will be delayed or cancelled but nevertheless Qld appears to have established itself as a major player in the business of gas exports. Let's see who does better out of how things stand in the local gas industry: Qld or NSW.

Anyway I reckon the Russians only "agreed" to the current deal so as to stick it up the Europeans and Americans regarding their reaction to Crimea and Ukraine. The Russians may want to renegotiate once things settle down on their western border.

As for gas being no good as a transition from coal to renewables. Again, maybe, but regardless of this there is little doubt that enormous amounts of the stuff will be sold and bought internationally in the next couple of decades. And anyway I really think that that sort of argument could be just as likely to be coming out of the spin specialists of Mr Putin's propaganda agencies. I don't put anything past the current Russian regime (and as an aside nor would the Chinese: remember that China began to gravitate towards the west because it feared the intentions of the then USSR more than it did those of the US and Mr Putin is a near-perfect reincarnation of the worst of the old USSR thinking imo).



--------------------
"The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent." John Maynard Keynes

"The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought." Rudiger Dornbush

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Aristotle

Said 'Thanks' for this post: mcart117  wolverine  
 
mcart117
post Posted: May 27 2014, 01:31 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 383
Thanks: 74


In Reply To: triage's post @ Apr 20 2014, 02:26 PM

So Triage, what did you think of this in the SMH this morning?

QUOTE
Russia last week finalised lengthy negotiations to supply 38 billion cubic metres of gas to China at an estimated price of $US9.90 per million British thermal unit, which is significantly cheaper than the export price into Japan for Australian gas of around $US18 per MMBTU.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/markets-liv...l#ixzz32slx2erJ

Also of possible interest to CSG is this one:

QUOTE
Turns out that just about everyone (including President Obama) has been hugely underestimating the methane pollution levels of so-called “clean gas.” The booming American economy now seems to come at a greater cost than we originally thought when we found out that natural gas produces only half as much carbon as coal.

A couple of years ago, natural gas produced through expensive hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) sounded like a great way to clear the air and forestall climate change, eh? Not really. Scientists have recently found that drilling-produced methane (up to 80 times more powerful than carbon dioxide over time) creates an even thicker blanket in the atmosphere than the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide. In simple terms, it basically creates a tighter greenhouse.

Source: http://cleantechnica.com/2014/05/26/clean-...us-coal-videos/

I can't vouch for the credibility of the source, but it would be a bit of a laugh if the planet boiled itself dry even faster as a direct result of "green" governments switching from coal to CSG. I liked it because I am pretty much out of CSG and rather too heavily into coal. sad.gif

 
triage
post Posted: Apr 20 2014, 02:26 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 3,019
Thanks: 1040


In Reply To: mullokintyre's post @ Apr 20 2014, 09:40 AM

Mick

Sounds weird doesn't it but the fundamental need for energy and the huge money involved in supplying that energy seems to be enough to smooth over even the worst of conflicts.

Another example of unlikely bedfellows is where the Iranians are working on putting a gas pipeline through Pakistan to supply India. Wouldn't think those three would have much trust in each other either but it seems that everyone but the pollies in NSW understand that without sufficient energy being made available modern civilisation is simply not viable.

Another point is that Mr Putin only has to put up a plausible case that he can supply gas to the South Koreans for him to be able to affect their long-term plans (if there is even only say a 10% chance of them getting gas from Russia at say half the price of Australian or US gas then it is logical for the South Koreans to delay committing to sourcing all their gas from Australia or the US on the off chance that Russia ends up being able to deliver).



--------------------
"The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent." John Maynard Keynes

"The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought." Rudiger Dornbush

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Aristotle
 


mullokintyre
post Posted: Apr 20 2014, 09:40 AM
  Quote Post


Posts: 1,108
Thanks: 294


In Reply To: triage's post @ Apr 20 2014, 07:46 AM

I can't belive that the South Koreans are so stupid as to believe that the North Koreans in allowing a gas pipeline to pass through their territory on its way to the South will not use it to
(a) Siphon of gas and have the South pay for it
(b) Use sabotage/turning it off as a blackmail weapon .

Just as the Europeans what happens when a pipeline is laid through a third country (Ukraine) from Russia.

Mick



--------------------
sent from my Olivetti Typewriter.
 
triage
post Posted: Apr 20 2014, 07:46 AM
  Quote Post


Posts: 3,019
Thanks: 1040


In Reply To: jacsar's post @ Apr 19 2014, 11:40 PM

jacsar

Yes I wish current holders of LNG good luck with its endeavours in the US.

As one American oil company executive told a British parliamentary committee looking at fracking last year not only do operators in the US have a distinct advantage over many other locations in that much of the necessary infrastructure to develop quickly a viable unconventional gas industry is already in place but it has the critical advantage that decisions to either develop or not are made by the various regulatory bodies without undue delay.

We know for a fact that a number of anti-development anti-capitalist groups that operate in Australia have an explicit strategy of not looking to actually block gas developments outright but rather to focus on delaying for as long as possible the approval processes required to get a development up and running. And that is what Barry O'Farrell was guilty of doing with the NSW industry: a series of delays that as good as killed off the sector. Talk about doing the devil's work!! Dogmatic defenders of the NSW Liberal Party can make as many excuses as they like for a conservative government using the game plan developed by Mr Putin to shore up the Russian dominance in the international gas markets but the simple fact is that Mr O'Farrell's dithering is the perfect demonstration of how effective the Russian developed and supported game plan is in hobbling competitors. Similar delays are negatively affecting Dart Energy's attempts at opening up a csg field in Scotland: month after month of regulatory delay is just sucking the life-blood out of the company.

Meanwhile Mr Putin is pushing ahead with plans to build a gas pipeline from eastern Siberia into South Korea through North Korea.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-19/russ...ea-debt/5400274

Mr Putin can be accused of being many uncomplimentary things but there is no doubting that he is a strategic thinker of the first order imo.

Perhaps that old scallywag Boone Pickens was on the money when he said in a Motley Fool interview last month that the defining advantage that the US has is that there the landowners are also the owners of the mineral and hydrocabon reserves under their land so that they have a direct interest in having those reserves developed whereas everywhere else the underground assets belong to the state so the landowners are less motivated.



--------------------
"The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent." John Maynard Keynes

"The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought." Rudiger Dornbush

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Aristotle
 
jacsar
post Posted: Apr 20 2014, 12:59 AM
  Quote Post


Posts: 691
Thanks: 67


In Reply To: triage's post @ Apr 19 2014, 02:01 PM

forgot to say very informative post, triage....thanks

 
jacsar
post Posted: Apr 19 2014, 11:40 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 691
Thanks: 67


In Reply To: triage's post @ Apr 19 2014, 02:01 PM

from the Alaska despatch link... A traditional LNG project involves development of gas fields, pipelines, a liquefaction plant, storage tanks, a shipping terminal and tankers, as well as regasification terminals to receive the LNG -- a coordinated value chain developed in unison.

But for many U.S. export projects, much of this value chain exists already. The project's core undertaking is just the liquefaction plant, a much smaller investment, and, in part because it's smaller, one that allows newer kinds of companies into the business than the government and international oil companies that have dominated the business. The LNG plant merely would provide a service to the resource owner — processing, storing and shipping the gas; it would never take ownership of the gas, avoiding the risks of commodity prices.

This is what Aussie firm LNG Ltd is doing at Lake Charles, Louisiana and is reflected in its share price since Feb as certain milestones are met and boxes ticked...still more upside to come. Bye, bye Fisherman's Landing

 
 


21 Pages (Click to Jump) V   1 2 3 4 > » 

Back To Top Of Page
Reply to this topic


You agree through the use of ShareScene.com, that you understand and accept the TERMS OF USE.


TERMS OF USE  -  CONTACT ADMIN  -  ADVERTISING