From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Sun Jun 15 2003 - 06:47:58 MDT
On Sun, 15 Jun 2003, Greg Burch wrote:
> > From: Robert J. Bradbury
> > Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2003 11:07 PM
> >
> > I have heard, from what I consider to be an authoritative
> > source, that international natural gas transport is not
> > economic (it would triple or quadruple prices).
>
> But there's plenty more. I know from recent meetings I've been in that
> Korea has a substantial consumption of natural gas, all of which is
> imported via ship.
Greg appears to be correct. It looks like petroleum producers are
being pushed into shipping the gas because otherwise they have
to burn it wastefully.
> The global fleet may be as big as 100 vessels in 2003.
According to the sources cited below there are now 128 LNG transport
ships and that may go to 160+ by 2004 [1].
But even with the larger ships, it still looks like gas prices need
to rise to $3.50-$4.00/mmbtu in the U.S. to justify access to distant
Canadian/Alaskan natural gas or justify LNG imports in the U.S.
Current shipping and liquification costs are not cheap, being $1.70/mmbtu
[2].
Robert
1. "Alaska LNG project looks unlikely, energy study says"
http://www.oilandgasreporter.com/stories/010302/nat_lng_unlikely.shtml
2. "LNG Imports need $3.50 Price to be Feasible"
Dow Jones Business News, April 7.
http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:do8oxhcCKxAJ:biz.yahoo.com/djus/030407/1748001121_1.html+LNG+shipping+costs&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jun 15 2003 - 06:56:56 MDT