The LNG in our neck of the woods, is coming from Alaska and Sahkilin Islands.
I would guess the same for Mexico/West Coast/Canada as well.  It seems these trips would be much shorter, so the number of ships, maybe lower.

I chatted with an energy company exec last April about just this subject.

His capacity concerns in the near term was not on the shipping capacity, but rather in the liquification facilities.  In a few years though, shipping capacity will be tight.

As for ship capacities, the average is 3.3BCF with capacities as large as 4.5 out there.  His expectation was that as time goes one, ship capacity would also increase, somewhat reducing the overall number.  

When it comes to servicing NA, its clear that most deliveries would not originate from the ME.  Sempra (the only one with a terminal underconstruction) signed a contract with an indonesian supplier (for only half of the terminals rated capacity though).  Logic would dictate that most sources would be closer, namely 20-25 day sail, not 40.  Alaska LNG would be the fastest, as would bolivia for any new West Coast location.  East coast locations would probably continue to source from existing locations, plus any incremental additions from W. Africa.

Read the rest of my conversation here:
http://unplanning.blogspot.com/2005/04/natural-gasp-conversation-with.html

My real question on the future of LNG really has to deal with how much GTL production could impinge on LNG production.  Given the inevitable shortage in Liquid fuels and the attendant rise in prices, how much gas will get Haber-Bosched into diesel and sold to China in a simple tanker ship rather than chilled and liquified and sent via LNG ship to the US.

I am not sure if anyone has looked at the play between these two end uses for methane.

Just a little clarification. Current U.S. consumption is about 62 bcf/day, not 75 bcf/day. U.S. production is at about 51 bcf/day. The other thing is that according to a model prepared by Prof. Douglas Reynolds (University of Alaska-Fairbanks) and me, given a North American natural gas peak in 2007 and EIA-projected demand, the U.S. might actually need to import 13.8 bcf/day in 2010. This is in agreement with the calculations of the Energy Ventures Group. I talked to Bush's gas lobbyist, Ms. Dena Wiggins of the firm Sutherland Asbill and Brennan, and she said that this is what they expect too. However, the tankers are NOT going to be there to provide supply to these terminals. I think that if you're investing billions of dollars, you have to check if you're going to have adequate supply. So in the end I believe that while everyone sees the need for two and a half times more LNG than the official EIA projection, the terminals won't be built if the investors are worried about tanker capacity.

I don't know of any Alaskan LNG project. The proposed projects will never be economical because of the competition in the Pacific Rim, especially from Australia which has cheaper gas. The only economical way of delivering Alaskan gas to the U.S. will be a 52-inch, 3,600-mile pipeline from the North Slope to Chicago. At a cost of over $ 15 billion, that won't be ready for another 10 years, and will deliver about 5.5 bcf/day. By then, the situation will be desperate.

Is there a place where they have a good breakdown on how natural gas is used in the U.S.?  The big ones are probably home heating, electricity, and industrial, but I gather that the industrial stuff is gradually moving overseas.

Well man, LNG tankers will be a great business in the future.

Unless somebody's starting the projects now, I question whether the regasifiers would be ready by 2010 either.  Even 2010 might be a stretch, if you're competing with China and others for the components.

The answer to NIMBY-ism?

http://www.newsday.com/business/printedition/ny-bzgass264601529jan26,0,565793.story?coll=ny-business -print

Deepwater ocean LNG terminal.  Far from any towns or shipping lanes.

Why is the focus always, "How can we continue business as usual (or some close facsimile)?"

So, we are running out of global-warming poison in our neck of the woods. Hmmm. Let's see if we can jimmy up some imports to keep the planet's destruction on schedule.

Now, I know that many here will say they are only speculating on what the powers that be will likely do to keep the entropy machine going, but that only smacks of the current media's obsession with "fair and balanced" treatment of the news. Put simply, the media feels they cannot challenge the logic of anyone and will merely allow any ole insane person put forth their views without commentary from the program's "journalist" hosts. Thus, lunatics like Robertson, Rove, Frist and the entire neocon circus can come onto the Sunday pundit pulpits and blather their idiocy without fear of a run-in with contradictory facts. We don't have to do that here. We can call it like it is.

Any continuation of the existing paradigm will result in increased suffering a little further down the road, increased war just around the corner, increased mortality for the human species in twenty years instead of lesser suffering in ten. Those who advocate technical solutions involving the release of more carbon into the atmosphere are simply allowing more people to overpopulate the planet and thus are increasing the number of people who will die unnecessarily. It is tantamount to murder. Murder in the name of consumer greed. Murder just so the current generation can continue their consumer orgy, so they can buy more plastic crap that ends up in the upstairs closet in two weeks, so they can overeat incredibly bad food from their local Mickey Dees.

Obviously we deserve our fate. We cannot seem to look beyond our two hundred function graphing calculators to the ultimate reality; it HAS to end no matter what we do to keep the party going. Physics is not the energy glutton's friend.

I can now see that this has to play out in the worst way possible. We are just like the monkeys at the zoo. A keeper tosses a treat into the enclosure and one of the smaller females grabs it and runs. A small male runs her down and takes it by force. Finally, the bull male slaps the small male around and eats it himself. Ahhh, America, bull monkey in the enclosure of life. Here we are a bunch of selfish monkeys all fighting for the scraps of the industrial revolution. Will we act in a reasoned manner? Of course not. The monkeys have tribes and the tribes are about to face off over the oil. One day the keeper will not have enough treats and then the monkeys will kill each other. Many will die of starvation. If this is the only way to kill off the energy monkeys, so be it.

Why is the focus always, "How can we continue business as usual (or some close facsimile)?" - Cherenkov

Please don't be rude to our hosts, who do the best honest quantitative analysis publically available.  I appreciate their contributions greatly.  

The answer to your question is obvious, this is a forum for bargaining, not acceptance.  (See the "rocket train" thread on building a continental network of maglev trains running in evacuated tunnels)

One thing about LNG - it's easier to guard than a pipeline.

Russia Gas Line Explosions Scare Europe

Saboteurs who bombed two natural gas pipelines high in the Caucasus Mountains this week, by one estimate sending a gas fireball nearly 600 feet into the sky, paralyzed Georgia and sent a message straight to Western Europe, which depends on Russian natural gas.

The Russian authorities are calling the strike a terrorist attack, suggesting that groups in or near the rebellious Chechnya region are aiming attacks at the country's energy distribution system.

That would be bad news for Western Europe, which gets a quarter of its natural gas from Russia. European leaders were already jittery after supplies were disrupted twice this month, once during a Russian dispute with Ukraine -- ostensibly over prices -- and later when extremely low temperatures caused demand in Russia to surge.

Georgian officials, upset over what they contended were unexplained delays in fixing the sabotaged pipeline, cautioned that Europe should look at their unheated capital, Tbilisi, before becoming more reliant on Russia.

Any idea how these ships are going to be built? I would think its a safe assumption that these will be quite large, technologically sophisticated ships. How many shipyards in the world are capable of building them? Are there any such shipyards in the U.S. or will they need to be built at the big yards in Asia? Assuming a limited number of shipyards are capable, what kind of competition for their services will there be. If HO is even close that the US needs 160+, how much will the world as a whole need? Is there even that sort of shipbuilding capacity on the planet?

Thanks for this post, HO, giving more detail than I was able to provide about both the LNG carriers and terminals. I graphed the EIA data because it was the only forecast data I could find. Regarding their numbers, I was disturbed to read unplanner's

According to the [anonymous] executive [he interviewed], they used to make more pessimistic assumptions until Congress cut their funding in the mid 1990's. Since then, the EIA has sung a more upbeat tune about energy reserves. This similar level of optimism permeates the USGS and influences some of the consultants (that accept federal funds) as well.

If the actual need for imported LNG is 13.8 bcf/day in 2010, as marek and his sources say (Dena Wiggins, no less!), I see no way that number can be met given all the constraints that HO, unplanner, marek and I have mentioned.

What is particularly alarming is that Americans are completely in the dark (pun intended?) about the future natural gas situation. When the hurricanes hit, gas got shut-in and prices rose. This was widely reported and understandable to the average citizen who doesn't keep up with energy issues which are, lets face it, less interesting than what Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are up to--they're having a baby! It used to be Brad and Jennifer Aniston but that's another sad story.... Sorry, I got sidetracked.

Anyway, the point is that the North American natural gas situation should be Front Page News. I had cited Michael Klare's The Geopolitics of Natural Gas but that's in a far left-leaning commie pinko magazine that nobody reads. Nonetheless, some parts are worth quoting.

Iran is also a major producer of natural gas. Under increasing diplomatic pressure from the Bush Administration to halt its suspected pursuit of nuclear weapons, Tehran has been eager to establish joint production and export projects with friendly nations in Europe and Asia. In the past two years alone, it has signed several multibillion-dollar deals with companies from France, Italy, Norway, Turkey, Japan and India for joint development of offshore gas fields in the Persian Gulf and the construction of new pipelines to Europe and Asia. Capping this drive was the signing in October 2004 of a $100 billion, twenty-five-year contract with the China National Petrochemical Corporation (Sinopec) for the joint production and export of liquefied natural gas (LNG), much of which will ultimately go to China. While all this makes perfect commercial sense, given Iran's need for foreign partners in the management of these ambitious projects, it is safe to assume Tehran is also seeking to increase the number of allies it can turn to in case of a showdown with the United States.

Qatar has tacked the opposite way, using its huge gas reserves to establish close ties with Washington and to insinuate itself beneath the US defense umbrella. Under a $10 billion, twenty-five-year agreement signed in 2003, ExxonMobil will build the world's largest LNG shipping facility in Qatar. Much of the resulting liquid will go to the United States to be converted back into gas. This will entail the construction of new LNG terminals at ports on the US Gulf Coast, a major undertaking.

Like Qatar's, many of the world's largest deposits of natural gas are located far from the areas where demand is greatest....

I have thought, and still think, that Iran is dealing from a position of strength because of their vast untapped gas reserves. This underscores the shortsighted and self-defeating US policies toward Iran that have characterized our relations with them for 25 years. Meanwhile, the US is dealing with Qatar--which means the 82 day round trip HO notes. There's more.

Increased cooperation in the transport of natural gas is developing too among Russia, China, Japan and the two Koreas. At the center of these efforts are the vast reservoirs of natural gas lying off Sakhalin Island in Russia's far east. To move this gas to international markets giant energy firms, including ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch/Shell, will build a huge LNG facility on Sakhalin's southern tip and at least one major pipeline. One pipeline is expected to extend from Sakhalin to northern China, while another might go to Japan; some visionaries have also proposed a branch line extending to South Korea via North Korea (a project that, if undertaken, would go a long way toward cementing the increasingly warm relations between the two). The LNG, meanwhile, will travel by ship to terminals in Japan and possibly the United States, if new LNG regassification plants are constructed along America's Pacific coast and/or in Baja California.

So, if we build some LNG terminals on the West Coast, we may get some of that Sakhalin Russian gas. But growing Asian demand may preclude that because long delivery routes increase costs--this implies competitive price wars. Finally, we should mention the growing fights over eastern regions of the Pacific Ocean.

Although demand for natural gas has engendered cooperation between once-estranged nations, rival claims to oil and gas fields have frequently caused friction, even armed conflict. This has most often occurred in cases involving disputed offshore territories, notably in portions of the South China Sea, the East China Sea and the Strait of Korea. All these areas are believed to harbor substantial reserves of hydrocarbons in one form or another...

The most intense and prolonged of these conflicts has occurred in the South China Sea, a relatively shallow body of water believed to harbor substantial reserves of oil and gas. All of the countries with shorelines on the South China Sea--Brunei, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam--have laid claim to a 200-mile offshore Exclusive Economic Zone in the area, many of them overlapping with one another, and all have laid claims to some or all of the small islands and reefs that dot the region. China, the dominant power in the area, claims all the islands and has been particularly aggressive in asserting its sovereignty over them--on several occasions using military force to drive away ships belonging to Vietnam and the Philippines.

I have quoted at length from Klare's article because the potential for escalating conflict between North America and Asia (including Russia in this case) is very real indeed. And among the Asian nations themselves. If we take any action against Iran, the situation will only escalate further. I don't know how these conflicts will play out but I think we'll know by 2010 because I think gas rationing in the US by that date is a serious possibility.

LNG Tankers are currently in a bad
state as tanker companies cannot
get their tankers loaded with gas.
LNG supplies are lower than predicted
due to delays in getting new projects
going.  In addition, ship builders
having no issues deliverying ships.

Thus, currently if you are in LNG tanker
business, you are suffering badly.

Now, I believe that the total number
of LNG ships that can be built in a year
is around 110 on the size.  Ship sizes
should be around 150m3, but new
designs call for 200m3.  I would not
be surprised if in five years we will
see 250m3.
m3=cubic meters.

Now, remember these shipyards are also
the same ones building oil tankers and
any other ships including oil platforms,
etc.

Looking at new LNG facilities, etc.
I don't think we will have LNG tankers
as the bottleneck.  Gas production
should be the bottleneck as they are
now.

One other thing.
Australia is a big LNG player, yet
almost no one here has mention it.
They are the ones who want to supply
China and US with more LNG.

So the places with potentially more
gas productions are:
Australia, Alaska, West Africa, Burma,
and Bolivia.  As far as I know,
these hold the biggest promise for
significant expansions and that other
issues are hindering them from increasing.

The latest ASPO-USA Peak Oil Review newsletter has a nice write up which includes the full text of an article Commentary: DOE Showdown with Oil Industry and Congress By Dan Berard. This is recommended reading. It does state, however, a questionable conclusion that this post and mine try to address.

[Energy] Secretary Bodman has inherited a number of problems. For starters, he must somehow learn from the two abortive efforts to pass a reasonable energy policy. The administration has had success with Clean Coal projects and new LNG hubs, but the rest are incentive-based giveaways for fuel additives.

From the newsletter--

Dan C. Berard, trained as a geophysicist, spent his early career in the oil & gas business as an exploration seismologist with Chevron Oil Company, and later as a technology executive with Exxon Corporation. Retired from the oil majors, Dan consults out of Clearwater, Florida (d_berard@bellsouth.net).

The American Petroleum Institute (or somesuch) did a cost estimate and predicted that a 1 bcf/day capacity (terminals, ships, liquefaction plant but excluding wells and gathering fields, etc) would require $5 to $10 billion of capital up front.

If we need 13 bcf/day in a few years, that $75 to $130 billion of capital investment.

I'm guessing that oil and gas E&P eats about $250 billion a year globally - anyone with a better estimate?

Looking at the Hirsch Report, I estimated that a 3% depletion rate for oil would need between $100 and $150 billion a year of capital investment in the Hirsch alternatives based on capital requirements I found on the net.

As to tankers, with this expansion of global traffic, how many tankers will be afloat on the world's oceans?  Sounds like in the mid-hundreds or more by 2020.  That's a lot of targets.

I know this is OT, but I got a chill reading the following portion of that ASPO report:
The Iranians could even calculate that by withholding a portion of their oil from the world market, they could drive oil prices so high that they would be more than compensated for the smaller volume of exports.

My question--sorry if this has been discussed previously: what happens when other countries decide that limiting production is the way to go?

The corrupt rulers of those countries have long had vast stock brokerage accounts stuffed with their loot. What would happen to their stock prices if they jacked up the price of oil? Why do you think the price of oil was so low only a few years ago?
The price isn't going up because the corrupt thugs want it to go up, it's going up because we are running out of oil.