Hot Pink List

U.S. energy secretary urges refiners not to increase fuel exports (to Europe)

oil&gas

Well-known member
Apr 16, 2002
13,910
2,238
113
Ghawar
Aug 27, 2022

Aug 27 (Reuters) - The U.S. Energy Secretary urged domestic oil refiners this month to not further increase exports of fuels like gasoline and diesel, adding that the Biden administration may need to consider taking action if the plants do not build inventories.

U.S. refiners have boosted oil product exports this month as domestic crude oil production rose and global fuel demand continued to recover.

Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, in a letter sent Aug. 18, urged seven refiners including Valero (VLO.N), ExxonMobil (XOM.N) and Chevron (CVX.N), to build supplies of fuels as the United States enters peak hurricane season.

"Given the historic level of U.S. refined product exports, I again urge you to focus in the near term on building inventories in the United States, rather than selling down current stocks and further increasing exports," Granholm said in the letter sent to refiners, a copy of which was seen by Reuters.

High U.S. oil product exports have been a concern for the administration of President Joe Biden this summer as gasoline prices briefly hit a record of $5 a gallon, helping drive inflation to 40-year highs. Gasoline prices have since fallen to about $3.86 per gallon.

Federal weather forecasters have projected an above-average Atlantic hurricane season, which can be a perilous time for refineries. Still-high gasoline prices remain a threat to Biden's fellow Democrats ahead of the Nov. 8 midterm elections, when they hope to retain control of both chambers of Congress.

Granholm said the administration is talking with state officials along the East Coast, where gasoline levels are at their lowest in nearly a decade. It is putting the gasoline and heating oil reserves in the U.S. Northeast, which hold 2 million barrels of fuel, on "active standby" for potential release, and preparing other emergency contingency actions, she said.

The administration hopes that companies will "proactively address this need" of building inventories, she said. If that does not happen, the administration "will need to consider additional federal requirements or other emergency measures," Granholm added, without providing details.

In a wide-ranging meeting with the same refiners in June, Granholm backed off a plan to ban U.S. fuel exports, but the idea has never fully left the table.

Refiners have said a ban could swamp domestic markets with fuel and cause some plants to cut output, which could decrease supply and put upward pressure on prices.

In addition, Northeast refiners import crude and fuels, trade that could be affected by an export ban.

"The export talk is at best a distraction; at worst, counterproductive to price and supply," said a source familiar with Granholm's talks with refiners.


 

Polaris

Well-known member
Oct 11, 2007
3,076
58
48
hornyville
It's just a misunderstanding.

America and the EU are allies.

But they not on the same page.

EU believes America has got its back, because they are allies.

America believes that they got the EU by their balls, a privilege of being allies.

It's just a big misunderstanding.
 

oil&gas

Well-known member
Apr 16, 2002
13,910
2,238
113
Ghawar
US Energy Secretary's letter puts US and EU's relationship in doubt

5th Sept, 2022

The United States' Energy Secretary, Jennifer Granholm, has asked seven major refiners to limit exports at a time when US allies in Europe are desperate for alternative supplies of fuel, according to the Wall Street Journal.

"Given the historic level of US refined product exports, I again urge you to focus in the near term on building inventories in the United States, rather than selling down current stocks and further increasing exports," she said.

"It is our hope that companies will proactively address this need," she said, adding that the administration will consider additional federal requirements or other emergency measures if the companies don't.

However, according to a joint statement from President Biden and President von der Leyen on European Energy Security, released on June 27 this year, the US is working together with the EU to find ways to further reduce Russia's energy-derived revenues in the coming months and also "partnering to diversify energy supplies to Europe".

"The Granholm export threat is also a slap in the face to European allies trying to diversify energy sources from Russia," the WSJ's editorial board wrote. Europe is trying hard to find diesel fuel since some manufacturers and power generators are considering using it as a substitute for natural gas.

Thurmer Gyula, president of the Hungarian Workers Party, said in a recent interview with the China Central Television that the EU and the people of Europe are in trouble now, "A cold winter is looming due to the lack of Russian gas. We don't know what will happen next, but it's certain that European people don't want to live this way."

Willy Wimmer, Germany's former parliamentary state secretary, said in an exclusive interview with CMG that the US has long planned to provoke the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, "Sanctions against Russia are aimed at achieving a political goal, just like the development of the situation in Ukraine is also for the same political purpose, which US allies must bear the consequences of sanctions against Russia as a result." He added that this is not good for the world.

Granholm wrote the letter because the administration is worried that fuel prices would spike before the November election due to a refinery outage, the WSJ article added.

 

oil&gas

Well-known member
Apr 16, 2002
13,910
2,238
113
Ghawar
Biden did the right thing. It is more important to ease gas prices
before the mid-term election. He can tell his NATO allies to kiss
Putin's ass to save their own in the coming winter.
 

oil&gas

Well-known member
Apr 16, 2002
13,910
2,238
113
Ghawar
Why Europe’s Dependence On U.S. LNG Is Risky

Sept 05, 2022

In the current year, the United States boasts status as the world's biggest liquefied natural gas (LNG) exporter as deliveries to both Europe–in the throes of a severe energy crisis–and Asia surge. So far in 2022, five developers have signed over 20 long-term deals to supply more than 30 million metric tons/year of LNG or roughly 4 Bcf/d, to energy-starved buyers in Europe and Asia.

Europe’s desperate attempt to rid itself of Russian gas became even more urgent this week, as Moscow announced that flows through Nord Stream 1 to Germany would remain cut off until the West lifted sanctions. That desperation has resulted in Europe displacing Asia as the top destination for U.S. LNG. In fact, Europe now receives 65% of total U.S. LNG exports. But there are growing concerns that trading one dependency for another carries another kind of risk. Putting all your eggs in the U.S. LNG basket means banking on Mother Nature. U.S. LNG supplies might not be vulnerable to Russia, but they are vulnerable to extreme weather and harrowing hurricane seasons that disrupt output and exports. Europe cannot afford any more disruptions.

The bulk of LNG export facilities in the United States--including proposed facilities--are housed along the Gulf Coast, and much of the gas that feeds those facilities comes from nearby inland reserves, from New Mexico and Texas to Louisiana, and beyond. This is a region prone to hurricanes, meaning that when hurricanes come roaring inbound, everything from liquefaction to shipping and extraction to processing is at risk of disruption.

It has happened before–and recently.

In recent years, multiple hurricanes have resulted in varying degrees of disruption for the LNG market, with impacts stretching across the supply chain from brief outages to long layoffs of processing and shipping.

Hurricane Laura in 2020 resulted in a two-week disruption at the Sabine Pass LNG export facility and well over a month at Cameron LNG.

Last year, Hurricane Ida resulted in a major and long-lasting curtailment of offshore gas production.

This year, a June explosion at the Texas-based Freeport LNG facility knocked nearly 20% of US LNG export capacity offline, sending LNG markets into a tailspin.


Scientists say the Gulf coast hurricanes are becoming increasingly severe, causing record-breaking compound flooding and placing critical infrastructure at risk.

Meanwhile, whereas the United States has the world’s largest lineup of new LNG projects in the works, there are also limits to how far this can go without more pipeline capacity to accommodate this wildly expanding energy segment.

In the Appalachian Basin, the country’s largest gas-producing region churning out more than 35 Bcf/d, environmental groups have repeatedly stopped or slowed down pipeline projects and limited further growth in the Northeast. This leaves the Permian Basin and Haynesville Shale to shoulder much of the growth forecast for LNG exports. Indeed, EQT Corp. (NYSE: EQT) CEO Toby Rice recently acknowledged that Appalachian pipeline capacity has “hit a wall.”

Analysts at East Daley Capital Inc. have projected that U.S. LNG exports will grow to 26.3 Bcf/d by 2030 from their current level of nearly 13 Bcf/d. For this to happen, the analysts say another 2-4 Bcf/d of takeaway capacity would need to come online between 2026 and 2030 in the Haynesville.

“This assumes significant gas growth from the Permian and other associated gas plays. Any view where oil prices take enough of a dip to slow that activity in the Permian and you’re going to have even more of a call for gas from gassier basins,” the analysts have said.

Though it may be rather late in the game, Europe is beginning to seriously consider Africa for its future energy supplies. Most notably, Mozambique is poised to ship its first cargo of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to Europe at this critical time.

This, too, is fraught with vulnerabilities in the form of political instability and insurgency.

French TotalEnergies’ Mozambique LNG project has been sidelined by insurgency. Italian Eni’s Coral-Sul FLNG is safe from the violent flashpoint and on track to help serve Europe, with BP already having inked a deal to buy all of the output for 20 years from the $7-billion Coral-Sul project, designed to produce 3.4 million metric tons of LNG. The Italian company is already planning a second floating export platform in the southern African country that could be completed in less than four years.

But nothing is certain here.

In the heart of the insurgency, TotalEnergies has announced plans to resume its massive $20 billion project toward the end of the year, with the terminal expected to churn out 13.1 million tons of LNG annually. That is, if it ever gets past the insurgency that led to a declaration of force majeure. The project hopes to restart in the first half of next year.

Optimism runs high, despite all. ExxonMobil says it will make a final decision for an even larger project in the near future. Meanwhile, the European Union has planned a five-fold increase in financial support to $15 million to fight militants near Mozambique’s gas projects. The EU has already pledged to provide the country's army with an additional 45 million euros ($45 million) of financial support, and has so far given a SADC mission in the country 2.9 million euros of funding.

Over the short-term, Europe is making headway in filling up its gas storage, and is now nine weeks ahead of where it was this time last year–even if it has come at a hefty premium. European gas storage levels are above 70%, and have even surpassed the 5-year average, according to data from Gas Infrastructure Europe (GIE).

By November 1st, the EU will likely hit 80% natural gas storage capacity--just in time for peak winter demand. Germany is even aiming for 95% capacity, and is already at 85%.

"The EU already surpassed its September 1 interim filling target in early July and is still on pace to reach the November 1 target," Jacob Mandel, senior associate for commodities at Aurora Energy Research, has told Reuters. Indeed, analysts at Standard Chartered Plc are saying that President Vladimir Putin’s gas weapon will be effectively blunted by the inventory build, with Europe set to go through winter “comfortably” without Russian gas.

This, however, poses two different problems. First, Europe will have to pay a heavy price: the cost of replenishing natural gas stocks is estimated at over 50 billion euros ($51 billion), 10 times more than the historical average for filling up tanks ahead of winter. Second, the bloc can’t survive on storage alone unless it severely reduces consumption for the winter.

Europe, as it stands, is vulnerable on every energy front, and if it’s not geopolitics and insurgency, it’s Mother Nature at her wildest.

 

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,670
6,839
113
I agree, that's why Germany was here to discuss hydrogen with Trudeau.
Time to move past fossil fuels.
ROTFLMFAO!! Hydrogen? Where is that magical Canadian hydrogen infrastructure that will save Germany?
 

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,670
6,839
113
We have to build if we are selling to Germany from the east coast.
So it makes sense to build for the future.
Aha, and the regulatory framework and planning alone will take a decade and a half. Not to mention that it takes literally tons of raw energy to produce hydrogen and complete new infrastructure to move it and store it. Justin's pipe dream; anything to avoid natural gas that is plentiful and available right now.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
94,022
23,593
113
Aha, and the regulatory framework and planning alone will take a decade and a half. Not to mention that it takes literally tons of raw energy to produce hydrogen and complete new infrastructure to move it and store it. Justin's pipe dream; anything to avoid natural gas that is plentiful and available right now.
It would take as long for LNG, so might as well go hydrogen.
 

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,670
6,839
113

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,975
3,552
113
ROTFLMFAO!! Hydrogen? Where is that magical Canadian hydrogen infrastructure that will save Germany?
Hydrogen production - Wikipedia

Practical electrolysis typically uses a rotating electrolyser, where centrifugal force helps separate gas bubbles from water.[44] Such an electrolyser at 15 bar pressure may consume 50 kilowatt-hours per kilogram (180 MJ/kg), and a further 15 kilowatt-hours (54 MJ) if the hydrogen is compressed for use in hydrogen cars.[45]

Energy to produce Hydrogen
50 Kilowatt-hours + 15 Kilowatt-hours per KG = 65 KWh

hydrogen fuel cell energy per kg - Search (bing.com)

In electrical terms, the energy density of hydrogen is equal to 33.6 kWh of usable energy per kg

This is the state of the green energy stupidity, somehow thinking this is a realistic solution to energy supply

Other sources of Hydrogen generation require heating the methane to between 700–1,100 °C and the by-product is ..... CO2

utter stupidity
 
Last edited:

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,975
3,552
113
despite what some might claim
using 65 kwh of energy to produce a kilo of a flammable gas which is capable of producing 33.6 kwh of energy is a real stupid idea
I do not care what source is quoted, no amount of tech advancements have over come that 2:1 ratio
Steam reformation ? requires heating to 700–1,100 °C and the by-product is ..... CO2 . Too funny


And some think we should be planning & investing to export hydrogen ???
utter stupidity
Transport from Western Canada to the East coast would require additional energy as would the trip across the pond

There is a reason Hydrogen is produced for specific industrial uses (welding , hydrogenation ,make acids, coolants etc.) and is not used as a fuel source.

Green Energy policy >>>> really bad policy driven not by economics, rather by ideology & a disregard for the physical laws of nature
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,975
3,552
113
What some fail to understand is we have an ideologically induced energy shortage

There will be no excess energy available to waste converting from a gas phase to a liquid phase for transport
Hydrogen does not even make sense without transport

BTW 40% for LNG is not very efficient, however it is not stupid like 65/ 33,6 = 193%

The answer is to remove the ideology driving the stupid plans
 

HungSowel

Well-known member
Mar 3, 2017
2,874
1,760
113
What some fail to understand is we have an ideologically induced energy shortage

There will be no excess energy available to waste converting from a gas phase to a liquid phase for transport
Hydrogen does not even make sense without transport

BTW 40% for LNG is not very efficient, however it is not stupid like 65/ 33,6 = 193%

The answer is to remove the ideology driving the stupid plans
First of all, you have me on ignore so I do not know how you can see my message. Secondly, the proper calculation is (65-33.6)/65 = 48% loss to be comparable to the 40% loss by liquifying Nat Gas, how you can have a 193% loss is not possible from a physics point of view.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frankfooter

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
94,022
23,593
113
First of all, you have me on ignore so I do not know how you can see my message. Secondly, the proper calculation is (65-33.6)/65 = 48% loss to be comparable to the 40% loss by liquifying Nat Gas, how you can have a 193% loss is not possible from a physics point of view.
He has me on ignore but keeps replying to points I make as well.
The guy can't debate honestly so has to pretend he's winning through cancel culture.

As usual, he missed the point. The Canada/German deal is for green hydrogen, using wind turbines and water with electrolysis.
Hydrogen is the storage medium for wind generated power.
 
Toronto Escorts