tui, probably two of your best posts on HC. And on a thread you dont own : ) Nice.
Terry, I share tui's sentiment on shale gas. The actual risk is what happens to the sea borne gas from the ME that may not be heading to the USA?
It is not a point lost on me the two hats that BG are wearing in the USA and Australia. I am sure they are playing both cards to improve their winning chances rather than a calculated move that says there is no risk from LNG out of QLD due to shale in the USA: their case and momentum for GLNG is pretty solid.
The USA does not import much of its gas - in fact I think you will find they import around 15-20% of their gas - and of this most of this is pipeline from Canada. About 1-2% is LNG. This does not mean that shale gas is not a risk - for it is actually killing import LNG. But also consider that the massive regasification capacity that the US currently has is being underutilised, and the market can turn on a dime should LNG need to start heading there again soon. Thats always possible when you see 5.9% growth. Not to mention the adoption of carbon policy that further adds pressure to gas.
There is a plethora of other good information on the web which discusses forecasts and actual usage etc. You should note that Gladstone LNG is focused on the big picture, and while there might be some short term weakness in the next 2 years, demand will ramp up and up again for gas. 2009 NG market summary
