An annual production capacity of Yamal LNG project is two times smaller than Nordstream 1 alone (not talking about combined NS1 + NS2 + pipelines via Ukraine and Belarus), so Yamal LNG is simply too small to substitute any major pipeline in terms of volumes and security of supply.
You used ships tracking data of January-May when North Sea Passage is closed even for Yamal LNG ice-breaking gas carriers and Yamal LNG (not Russian state) needs to ship LNG to European ports partially for European buyers, partially for Asian buyers after transshipment. If you take a look at summer voyages of Yamal LNG tankers (June-January), you would be surprised how many of them sail from Sabetta directly to Asia and these volumes never come to Europe.
Russia never built any single LNG tanker - South Korean ship yards did it. And majority of these Korea-built ships (with exception of single SCF-owned unit) are owned by Asian, European and American ship owning companies those charter (rent) them to Yamal LNG. If Yamal LNG stops to pay for their usage, charters quickly cease and the flow of Yamal LNG is over.
Koryak FSU and Sam FSU are Korea-built non-propelling Floating Storage Units unable to transport anything and they may only store LNG for transshipment from Arctic ice-breaking tankers to standard ones.
Bolshoi Kamen’ shipyard only put pieces of LNG tankers constructed in South Korea together. As Korean shipyards stopped deliveries of these pieces to Bolshoi Kamen’, this yard stopped “construction of Russian LNG tankers”.
Finally, Yamal LNG as an international consortium has some many tax exemptions in Russia and actually pays almost no taxes to state budget, so Western governments can’t claim that “this LNG funds the war” and don’t sanction the same.
Nordstream 1 was shut by Russia at the time of the invasion, or just after. Nordstream 2 was never used, because Germany didn’t certify it. Considering Putin shutting Nordstream 1 anyway, it probably didn’t matter.
Russia has been building its LNG export capacity for years. These are not projects you decide on and build since the Ukrainian invasion. All Russian LNG export capacity was built or under construction from well before the invasion.
Not sure your point?
Are you implying Russia destroyed Nordstream so only their LNG would be available for export?
Nord Stream 1 was a controversial topic already in the early 2000s. Germany preferred a land-based routing across the Ukraine and Poland, which Russia specifically wanted to avoid. After 2011, western allies of Germany became increasingly concerned about Russia’s leverage over Germany, as Russia supplied 50% of Germany’s gas. The relations between Germany and its western allies were getting progressively more strained when plans for Nord Stream 2, and preparations for construction, became known. In particular the US was watching with great discomfort. At that time Russia must have realized it needed a plan B, and started building the fleet in the late 2010s.
Of course with the gas in Russia’s hinterland, a pipeline would have been a massive undertaking, as well as LNG being able to be shipped anywhere, rather than have a termination point and then build LNG liquefaction trains from there, as you say.
I think it worth pointing out Russia shut the gas flow in Nordstream 1, in an attempt to pressure Germany to not oppose the Ukrainian invasion, st least in a material way, and it was Germany who did not sign off on Nordstream 2. Of course, with the first pipeline effectively shutdown, it really didn’t matter at that point.
Interesting, if not entirely surprising. Maybe useful to know: China also builds LNG carriers, by the many dozens literally, so that part of the tech appears to be available. Though the ice class LNG carriers are unique. Russia is the leader in ice breakers more generally (and that fleet is also part of this operation in the colder times of year), but Russia lacks China and Korea's economics of scale in ship building. In any case economics of LNG transport are decidedly weak compared to pipeline transport also because of the energy losses in liquifying and de-liquifying the fuel. And natgas cost is all about transport.
Thanks for the comments! Russia doesn't have a single open-sea harbor which is ice-free all year round. There are ice sheets even in its Bolshoi Kamen shipyard, the southernmost part of Russia near the border with China and NK, as can be seen in satellite images. So the ice breaking capabilities are a real bottleneck (and make it more expensive).
Pipelines are of course much cheaper. Norway is laughing all the way to the bank, as it now sends more gas to Europe in pipelines than Nord Stream ever did.
As the famous Doomberg quote so aptly describes this situation “In the war between platitudes and physics, physics stands undefeated”.
nobody says it better.
Many thanks!!
Few simple facts may destroy this theory.
An annual production capacity of Yamal LNG project is two times smaller than Nordstream 1 alone (not talking about combined NS1 + NS2 + pipelines via Ukraine and Belarus), so Yamal LNG is simply too small to substitute any major pipeline in terms of volumes and security of supply.
You used ships tracking data of January-May when North Sea Passage is closed even for Yamal LNG ice-breaking gas carriers and Yamal LNG (not Russian state) needs to ship LNG to European ports partially for European buyers, partially for Asian buyers after transshipment. If you take a look at summer voyages of Yamal LNG tankers (June-January), you would be surprised how many of them sail from Sabetta directly to Asia and these volumes never come to Europe.
Russia never built any single LNG tanker - South Korean ship yards did it. And majority of these Korea-built ships (with exception of single SCF-owned unit) are owned by Asian, European and American ship owning companies those charter (rent) them to Yamal LNG. If Yamal LNG stops to pay for their usage, charters quickly cease and the flow of Yamal LNG is over.
Koryak FSU and Sam FSU are Korea-built non-propelling Floating Storage Units unable to transport anything and they may only store LNG for transshipment from Arctic ice-breaking tankers to standard ones.
Bolshoi Kamen’ shipyard only put pieces of LNG tankers constructed in South Korea together. As Korean shipyards stopped deliveries of these pieces to Bolshoi Kamen’, this yard stopped “construction of Russian LNG tankers”.
Finally, Yamal LNG as an international consortium has some many tax exemptions in Russia and actually pays almost no taxes to state budget, so Western governments can’t claim that “this LNG funds the war” and don’t sanction the same.
Nordstream 1 was shut by Russia at the time of the invasion, or just after. Nordstream 2 was never used, because Germany didn’t certify it. Considering Putin shutting Nordstream 1 anyway, it probably didn’t matter.
Russia has been building its LNG export capacity for years. These are not projects you decide on and build since the Ukrainian invasion. All Russian LNG export capacity was built or under construction from well before the invasion.
Not sure your point?
Are you implying Russia destroyed Nordstream so only their LNG would be available for export?
Nord Stream 1 was a controversial topic already in the early 2000s. Germany preferred a land-based routing across the Ukraine and Poland, which Russia specifically wanted to avoid. After 2011, western allies of Germany became increasingly concerned about Russia’s leverage over Germany, as Russia supplied 50% of Germany’s gas. The relations between Germany and its western allies were getting progressively more strained when plans for Nord Stream 2, and preparations for construction, became known. In particular the US was watching with great discomfort. At that time Russia must have realized it needed a plan B, and started building the fleet in the late 2010s.
That clarifies it some.
Of course with the gas in Russia’s hinterland, a pipeline would have been a massive undertaking, as well as LNG being able to be shipped anywhere, rather than have a termination point and then build LNG liquefaction trains from there, as you say.
I think it worth pointing out Russia shut the gas flow in Nordstream 1, in an attempt to pressure Germany to not oppose the Ukrainian invasion, st least in a material way, and it was Germany who did not sign off on Nordstream 2. Of course, with the first pipeline effectively shutdown, it really didn’t matter at that point.
Interesting, if not entirely surprising. Maybe useful to know: China also builds LNG carriers, by the many dozens literally, so that part of the tech appears to be available. Though the ice class LNG carriers are unique. Russia is the leader in ice breakers more generally (and that fleet is also part of this operation in the colder times of year), but Russia lacks China and Korea's economics of scale in ship building. In any case economics of LNG transport are decidedly weak compared to pipeline transport also because of the energy losses in liquifying and de-liquifying the fuel. And natgas cost is all about transport.
Thanks for the comments! Russia doesn't have a single open-sea harbor which is ice-free all year round. There are ice sheets even in its Bolshoi Kamen shipyard, the southernmost part of Russia near the border with China and NK, as can be seen in satellite images. So the ice breaking capabilities are a real bottleneck (and make it more expensive).
Pipelines are of course much cheaper. Norway is laughing all the way to the bank, as it now sends more gas to Europe in pipelines than Nord Stream ever did.