LNG tankers changing course?

simonrichards912 · Post by **simonrichards912** » 06 Oct 2005, 14:42

LNG contracts are different to oil. There is no spot market for LNG as far as I am aware. The LNG buyer contracts with the LNG processor directly. As long as the LNG processor delivers the correct tonnage to the LNG buyer it probably doesn't matter too much which ships go where.

Totally_Baffled · Post by **Totally_Baffled** » 06 Oct 2005, 21:29

Tess wrote:
fishertrop wrote:
Totally_Baffled wrote:...but then there must be a limit to what even the US is prepared to pay given their precarious debt problems.
Not when you are the world's reserve currency and you can print your own money.....
Yes, until the US is no longer the world's reserve currency, you should assume that the US will always be able to outbid everyone else whatever the price.

Except the goverment/federal reserve do not purchase gas on behalf of the US.

It is purchased by energy companies to sell onto its customers/consumers. The higher the price, the less they will buy.

Anyway, trade deficits have an impact. The US has more than double the UK trade deficit per head of population. This is already having an impact on US interest rates, if continued unchecked they will end up with interest rates so high their housing bubble will implode, which in turn will fold the US economy.

They have to be careful on what they pay for energy like anyone else.

Mind you , if they turned around and said "Tony, give me the gas or I remove the UK from the world map" then I guess we should give it up!

fishertrop · Post by **fishertrop** » 06 Oct 2005, 21:43

Tess wrote: Does this help?

Yeah, brilliant, thanks

RevdTess · Post by **RevdTess** » 06 Oct 2005, 21:44

Totally_Baffled wrote: Except the goverment/federal reserve do not purchase gas on behalf of the US.

It is purchased by energy companies to sell onto its customers/consumers. The higher the price, the less they will buy.

True, true, never denied it. But to my thinking, the more they pay, the more the producers like the Saudis have to spend on American products, services, assets and debt. I see no way that America can lose while oil is priced in dollars. The cash always comes back to them somehow.

RevdTess · Post by **RevdTess** » 06 Oct 2005, 21:54

simonrichards912 wrote:LNG contracts are different to oil. There is no spot market for LNG as far as I am aware. The LNG buyer contracts with the LNG processor directly. As long as the LNG processor delivers the correct tonnage to the LNG buyer it probably doesn't matter too much which ships go where.

Are you involved in the LNG market? Does physical trading occur? If not, presumably a market will develop over time? In a few years I'd be surprised if it isn't as complex and convoluted as the oil market.

ps welcome to powerswitch by the way!

fishertrop · Post by **fishertrop** » 07 Oct 2005, 20:12

Tess wrote:
Totally_Baffled wrote: Except the goverment/federal reserve do not purchase gas on behalf of the US.

It is purchased by energy companies to sell onto its customers/consumers. The higher the price, the less they will buy.
True, true, never denied it. But to my thinking, the more they pay, the more the producers like the Saudis have to spend on American products, services, assets and debt. I see no way that America can lose while oil is priced in dollars. The cash always comes back to them somehow.

And the US isn't short of sophisticated finacial instruments to get money where it needs to be - where gov policy wants it to be in some cases.

Anyone think an act of congress to fund direct purchases of fuel "in the national interest" to be out of the question? Maybe I'm getting ahead of myself....

Vortex · Post by **Vortex** » 17 May 2006, 09:27

Having just joined this forum, I came across this old thread.

Err ... there IS a spot market for LNG ... and ships DO get "hijacked" by better offers whilst at sea.

For example the UK nabbed a LNG shipment destined for the US from Trinidad. The ship crossed the Atlantic because we offered so much.

The UK LNG terminal took in many fewer shipments than planned - the ships couldn't be found.

The 4 US LNG terminals are only 50% utilised as they can't find enough LNG shipments.

I juts hope that the UK sets up some fixed, long term contracts with Algeria, Qatar ... or wherever.

newmac · Post by **newmac** » 17 May 2006, 09:59

We don't need to set up long term contracts.....the JESS report says that all import mechanisms willl be 100% utilised

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 30 May 2006, 13:43

We don't need to set up long term contracts.....the JESS report says that all import mechanisms willl be 100% utilised

Phew! I feel much better now!!! There was me thinking they may have missed something . . .

Totally_Baffled · Post by **Totally_Baffled** » 30 May 2006, 18:04

newmac wrote:We don't need to set up long term contracts.....the JESS report says that all import mechanisms willl be 100% utilised

Its worse than this! The JESS report says that import mechanisms will be 100% utilised AND we will receive "other imports" (whatever that is!)

Not looking good...

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 11 Oct 2007, 10:29

Just came across this thread about LNG...

When we get asked to do Carbon Footprints at work, we work with a list of 'factors' published by DEFRA and used by everybody. For Gas, for example, it gives us 0.19 kg of CO2 produced per kWh of gas energy. HOWEVER I've since heard that, during the winter when demand is greatest, a lot of the gas in Transco's pipes is in fact LNG not piped North-Sea/Russian gas, and of course this has a different (probably greater) factor.

So there are all these people going around thinking their Carbon Footprint is lower than it actually is...

PowerSwitch

LNG tankers changing course?

Re: LNG tankers changing course?