←back to thread

Europe is locking itself in to US LNG

(davekeating.substack.com)
151 points hunglee2 | 1 comments | 16 Sep 25 13:56 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
mytailorisrich ◴[16 Sep 25 14:06 UTC] No.45262444[source]▶
Another level of irony is that this is partly because Europe does not want to develop shale gas for environmental reasons, so it imports US LNG... which is mostly shale gas [1].

The US love Europe's policies...

[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/surging-us-lng-expor...

replies(8): >>45262480 #>>45262532 #>>45262534 #>>45262538 #>>45262550 #>>45262558 #>>45262853 #>>45262941 #
Etheryte ◴[16 Sep 25 14:36 UTC] No.45262853[source]▶
The environmental issues with shale gas are local, if you ignore global warming as a whole. So in that sense, not doing it in your own back yard makes a lot of sense.
replies(1): >>45263395 #
fulafel ◴[16 Sep 25 15:10 UTC] No.45263395[source]▶
Global warming is the biggest harm though so it doesn't make sense to ignore it.
replies(1): >>45266653 #
Etheryte ◴[16 Sep 25 19:19 UTC] No.45266653{3}[source]▶
I'm not so sure. As a whole, yes, global warming is a huge issue, but one shale gas well alone will surely have very marginal effect on that. Comparing that to the fact that it can seriously contaminate groundwater and air in your imminent vicinity seems like a more serious issue in that regard.
replies(1): >>45271620 #
1. fulafel ◴[17 Sep 25 04:19 UTC] No.45271620{4}[source]▶
A barrel of oil means about 560 kg of co2 emissions. Including the mortality cost til 2100 from emissions bumps the cost of emissions to about $145 per barrel using nrs from[1] (0.56 tons of emissions from a barrel x $260 scc per ton of emissions). I'll leave it to you to quantify the local effects and whether they are worse.

[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8322393/ - they include effects only to 2100 which is way too short term IMO, should be higher