Ive here.This article on the prospect of energy shocks already in motion Relying on Daniel Yerkin’s Bloomberg TV interviewwho more or less said, “Yes, it could be worse than the 1970s.”

It’s disconcerting to see the business media’s reluctance to hype LNG hopium, perhaps because many will still profit from it. U.S. supplies are unlikely to increase anytime soon due to shortages of frac sand, copper, tubing and equipment. The U.S. needs to build new terminals, especially since the Gulf Coast terminals are so far from Europe. Corresponding needs are rising in Europe, albeit to varying degrees. Europe is currently importing significantly below full capacitybut countries with the lowest usage, such as Spain and the United Kingdom, are not high on the list of destinations in need.

And what about tankers, which, as PlutoniumKun points out, come more slowly?

Also, there isn’t much discussion about how much U.S. LNG will cost Europeans more than Russian gas.Russian Energy Ministry estimates A price premium of at least 30% to 40%. But even if it ends up being only 25%, that’s more cost to swallow.

This is a long-winded claim that energy hunger will increasingly resemble food hunger, a matter of distribution, not just total supply. And we don’t just mean geographic distribution, but also meeting the energy needs of existing infrastructure for use. Remember our diesel pet example again. Many passenger cars in Europe run on diesel, and because Russian natural gas is medium-weight, it is a good feedstock for making diesel. Making diesel from shale gas is inefficient. So Europe will need to get the heavy, sour crude from somewhere…adding complexity and potentially increasing costs. I’m sure readers can come up with other examples of how retrofitting without Russian oil and gas or even coal is not entirely straightforward.

By: Irina Slav, a writer for Oilprice.com with over a decade of writing experience in the oil and gas industry.Originally Posted in oil price

• In 1973, when oil producers in the Middle East announced an embargo on oil exports to the United States, oil prices soared, and the United States experienced severe fuel shortages.
• Today’s energy crisis, including not only oil but also natural gas and coal, may be worse than the infamous oil crisis of the 1970s.
• The current energy crisis could soon get worse as the European Union moves to ban Russian coal and the United States struggles to meet its LNG commitments.

In 1973, following the Yom Kippur war between Israel and the League of Arab States, Middle Eastern oil producers announced a ban on oil exports to the United States as punishment for Israel’s support. What followed was a massive energy crisis. According to Daniel Yergin, the current energy crisis could be worse.

inside 1970s oil crisis, oil prices soared fourfold in the three months following the embargo. At the time, the U.S. believed that lost market share would hurt producing countries economically. But instead, these producers made up for lost market share with much higher prices.

However, fuel shortages and emergency energy conservation measures have hit U.S. consumers hard due to decades of rising oil consumption in the country due to low oil prices in the Middle East.

Interestingly, although the embargo did not involve Europe, the continent was hit even harder because of the way prices rose following the actions of Arab producers. Fuel rationing was introduced and national speed limits were introduced to save fuel.

The latter measure, regarding speed limits, is for those following the IEA Suggest Energy saving: This is one of ten steps listed by the International Energy Agency that are necessary to reduce the EU’s dependence on Russia’s fossil fuels.

Today’s shortages, which involve all fossil fuels, not just oil, are one reason the crisis may be worse than it was in the 1970s, Yergin said. interview This week with Bloomberg.

“I think it could be worse,” the expert told Bloomberg. “It’s about oil, gas and coal, and it’s also about two countries that happen to be nuclear superpowers.”

Aside from the understandable unease that the second half of the statement would provoke in anyone in Europe or North America, the first one is persuasive. Europe relies on Russia for nearly half of its coal and natural gas imports and about a quarter of its crude oil imports. And the EU just decided to ban Russian coal imports in an attempt to hurt the Russian economy as punishment for Russia’s actions in Ukraine.

RELATED: Iran ready to sign nuclear deal, but talks done

By the way, this is what happened after the announcement of the yet-to-be-sanctioned ban.Indonesia hiking Its own coal prices fell 42%, with Australian coal miners reporting limited capacity to replace Russian coal, while Asian coal prices surged amid reports that European buyers were looking for alternatives.

What happens in coal is pretty much what happens in oil and gas. As Yergin pointed out in an interview with Bloomberg, the global gas market is already quite tight and there is no ready replacement if Russian gas stops flowing. This is the case despite efforts by U.S. LNG producers to increase exports.

Another energy expert, David Blackmon, goes one step further this week on the energy transition podcast, saying the U.S. has no material means to fulfill President Biden’s pledge to the European Union to supply an additional 15 billion cubic meters of gas in the form of liquefied natural gas. Blackmon pointed to the time needed to ramp up gas production and expand liquefaction capacity, as well as a limited fleet of LNG tankers and commitments already to export LNG to other buyers.

In an environment where fossil fuel supply and demand appear to be vastly outpacing tight supplies, things have become critical in the absence of any oil or gas embargoes, a senior EU official said mention It may become “necessary” at some point. The cost of living is rising across the continent, and governments are struggling to control it. If the EU goes down the embargoed path, the outcome could be disastrous, as almost all analysts have been warning for weeks.