Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Any company involved in selling LNG and FSRU services would be well advised to do similar to NFE and obtain ready access to non fracked gas. Ireland isn't the only place NFE are facing eco opposition to fracking, they've been getting it at home in New Jersey as well.
It would also be a very wise move to resubmit the application using an FSRU rather than the existing terminal. Like oil wells at sea, out of sight is out of mind, very difficult to picket a floating vessel and you certainly can lie down in front of one en masse or glue yourselves to the access roads.
Opposition will only get louder and not just from eco activists and Europe. It isn't beyond the realms of possibility that the Democrats decide to wage an all out war against fracking in a couple of years time. If the Republicans are in a real bad state and look incapable of winning the next presidential election, why not?
There’s got to be something in it - Golar’s Hilli Episeyo FLNG vessel gives New Fortress access to non-fracked LNG in Cameroon, they have all the LNG carriers needed to transport it, then they own FSRU which can be deployed to regas it. There is the whole value chain right there, so why would they plonk a land based LNG terminal in Ireland if an FSRU were preferred and they can execute it in house? In previous RNS, which pre-dated the Golar acquisition, there was reference to agreements with a major FSRU owner, and a third party (I can’t remember the wording) - is the third party NFE? I’m seeing a blurry jigsaw and I can’t make out all the pieces...
I did wonder about something along those lines myself. NFE announced they would be resubmitting a bid a few days after buying Golar LNG and the CEO sounded really sanguine about it.
Very happy birthday to you GRH.
All good points as always. I find it intriguing that New Fortress now own Golar, with the associated fleet of 13 FSRU/FSU. Could there be some sort of tie up/JV to be had between PRD’s proposal and New Fortress?
Lochnez
Agreed...
the 'gap' in energy supply is thought to be temporary
so it makes sense to deliver a solution that is also temporary in nature
Whether the gap IS temporary remains to be seen...
I have read stuff relating to high levels of land usage (to allow green solutions to be deployed in sufficient volume)
that made my hair stand on end...
whether such high % land utilisation will be acceptable to the populace is another matter
BTW...
Whoever thinks that wind farms are 'green' has not done even 101 level research.
As to Paul Deane's Paper, I am sure of several things
It is very conservative...VERY
The 'surplus' supplies can be exported to wherever the best market might be at any given time
The lead time for the PRD proposal is VERY short...
THAT alone mitigates in its favour
as it can assuage data centre owners who are mighty fidgety about the lack of energy supply 'headroom'
PRD equity truly is at 'call' option levels...
it is now better priced IMO than it was when I bought my own stake
ATB
Hello Cmcc, like PT I agree it is one of the major ace cards of the PRD proposal. They’d be taking an existing vessel (carbon footprint in the construction of it is already sunk), utilising it for useful life, and it can then be removed without a trace and potentially redeployed elsewhere by it’s owners. It’s also feeding existing gas infrastructure rather than new connections. When you compare that to all the civils work and storage tanks etc onshore with New Fortress, there is only one winner from a green perspective. The whole concept is a complete master stroke.
Hi yes it does put us at an advantage IMO, but if LNG is back up only (to uk/Moffat gas) I doubt we will be making £2.6B per annum off it for 10 years. It should still be lucrative though until at least 2035, when I suspect H2 and biomethane etc. will start to take over.
Very interesting, thanks for sharing. Am I right to think that the concern noted around the potential for post-carbon “stranded” infrastructure places our floating LNG terminal option in a very advantageous position vis-a-vis competing fixed terminal alternatives (in addition to the no-fracked-gas commitment)?