Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Ahoy, Avast!, backstroke, CH4, F'NG, FLiNG, FLNG, George H. W. Bush, green, green gas, liquified natural gas, LNG, Michael Phelps, Natural gas, natural gas production, offshore Australia, OMG, Royal Dutch Shell, Shell, swimming, talk like a pirate, WHOA, zero hedge
Floating Liquified Natural Gas Facility (FLNG).
Shouldn’t that be FLNGF? Don’t pretend there’s no F-word on the end. Wouldn’t all of our acronyms be so much better if we could just make up the rules as we go along.
Developed after 10 years of research, using 600 engineers, and 1.6 million man-hours (182.5 years equivalent), Shell has manged to compact the size of a traditional LNG plant to a quarter of its land size. As Wired explains: “by stacking components vertically and using deep-sea water to cool the gas to its liquid state, the FLNG saves dramatically on deck space and enables the whole facility to occupy an area of roughly 4 football pitches: 28,500 square meters. One of its most innovative features involves the the plant’s unique location: an assembly of eight one-meter diameter pipes will extend 150m below the ocean’s surface, delivering around 50 million liters of cold seawater an hour, used to cool the gas.”
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: China, energy, fracking, good cop-bad cop, jobs, LNG, LNG exports, LNG trade, Natural gas, natural gas trade movements, Obomney, OMG, RBAC, Robama, shale gas, tight gas, trade deficit
“We are confident that either one would be supportive of LNG exports,” Cooper told Rigzone.
U.S. LNG imports, which peaked at nearly 2.4 billion cubic feet per day in 2007, have fallen substantially as the growth in North American gas production due to shale gas, according to an Oct. 18 report by RBAC Inc., a company that develops and licenses management decision support systems for the energy industry. As a result, LNG facility backers are now seeking to outfit existing U.S. LNG import facilities with liquefaction equipment to ship LNG overseas.
Proponents say U.S. LNG exports will benefit the United States by creating construction jobs, and generate revenue to reduce the U.S. trade deficit through LNG sales and federal, state and local government tax revenues.
Know what else creates jobs and generates revenues? Cheap domestic gas. Exporting gas which would otherwise be flooding the U.S. market would raise the price for Americans. This would probably destroy a lot more jobs than would be created to build and maintain LNG terminals. The job-creation argument goes out the window.
In the meantime, the negative consequences of energy production would accrue right here in America.
Are western Americans willing to sacrifice their water so international companies can frack their shale gas and ship it to China? Robomney bets yes.