Breakneck LNG Build-Out Shows Germany Can Move Fast

Wait, I was told by experts that it would be years—years!—before Europe could build LNG terminals to replace the gas that Putin supplies, gas which is paying for his war.

Now I read that Germany has done it in less than a year.

Merry Xmas, Vlad! Now go see a doctor about that nasty hole you shot in your foot…


You were told correctly. Germany did not build an LNG terminal in a year. What they did was lay a pipe that will got to 5 floating LNG regasification ships…that probably cost around $200,000 - $300,000 a day to charter. The cost has now more than doubled the original. And…these 5 ships still won’t replace all the gas that Germany was getting from the guys to their east.

BERLIN, Nov 20 (Reuters) - The purchase and maintenance of floating liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals to help Germany secure energy supplies and diversify away from Russian gas, will cost more than 3 billion euros ($3.10 billion) more than planned, the economy ministry said on Sunday.

Overall, the costs are estimated at about 6.56 billion euros, the ministry said, confirming a report in Der Spiegel. That compares with 2.94 billion euros estimated in the country’s 2022 budget.

1 Like

The FSRUs being installed in European ports are not being purchased and the charter rates may not be as lucrative as for trading LNG Carriers, judging from Hoegh LNG’s last quarterly report:

There still need to be terminals for the FSRUs to operate at, including facilities to transfer the liquified gas to the pipeline network for distribution, which takes time an money to construct.

Outlook for FSRU market 2022-2026:

I suggest you learn what the hell the adults in the discussion are talking about before you try to join the conversation. FSRU stands for Floating Storage Regasification Unit. The entire purpose of parking one at the dock in Germany/etc is to send Natural GAS ashore into the distribution network so people don’t freeze this winter.

Look back over the last 10-15 years and FSRU’s were mostly utilized by small incompetent countries that couldn’t figure out how to build a proper LNG receiving terminal. Basically, Germany, Finland, and other euro countries are now basically 3rd world shithole status in which their citizens must worry about if they will have electricity and heat this winter…and also if they can afford both, since prices have gone up 2-4x or more.

Germany is obviously winning. Floating Storage unit receives LNG from tankers. Shuttle tankers take LNG from FSU to FSRU unit that is docked at port. LNG comes from far away and takes lots of energy to liquify and transport. And this still only makes up a fraction of the previously imported pipeline gas. Greta must be happy too. All-in-all, huge win for team EU!

I know perfectly well what FSRU stands for and how the process works, In fact I was MWS on one of the first project to convert a LNGC to FSRU for Golar LNG in Singapore back in mid-2000s:

I could have explained the process better but I thought the “adults on this forum” would understand that “facilities to transfer the liquified gas to the pipeline network for distribution” meant; moorings, wharf, pipelines etc. and that the LNG would be delivered from the FSRU in gas form.

No there are no Floating Storage unit or, Shuttle tankers involved.
LNGCs moore directly to the FSRU in port for STS transfer:


So maybe you should take your own advice re: “learning what the hell the adults in the discussion are talking about before you try to join the conversation”.

FYI: The first FSRU has arrived in Germany and is open for business:


Yes you have a point there,. It all started in Louisiana:

The Europeans will suffer high cost of energy for a while, but they will bear it to support Ukraine.
They will not turn into “3rd world sh*tholes”, however.
They will survive and eventually thrive because of the new knowledge and the renewable energy technology that will flow from the hardship.

Those who think it doesn’t affect them and keep on doing the same old things will eventually suffer much worse.

PS> FSRUs are also able to supply LNG to small LNG tankers for distribution to smaller ports, or to bunker LNG powered ships:

Illustration only; Courtesy of Klaipedos Nafta

The shore installation MAY also involve facilities for filling LNG ISO containers for transport by rail, road or inland ships.


From the link I posted above:

In a typical receiving station arrangement, the FSRU is semi-permanently moored alongside a shoreside terminal, and LNG carriers make up to the FSRU to transfer their cargo. Lubmin is too shallow for LNG carriers to navigate, so the partners will have a second vessel - an FSU - semi-permanently moored offshore for receiving. The shuttle tankers, which will have shallower draft, will bring the LNG from the FSU to the FSRU.

From your link above:

The facility opened off of Wilhelmshaven is slated to feed an estimated 6% of Germany’s gas demand into the energy grid each year.

All this shit is a BS piss in the wind circle jerk. It’s not even enough gas to make a reasonable dent in what is required from pipelines. And of course everybody ignores the massive inefficiency of liquifiy natural gas, shipping it across the would, using more energy (in a cold climate) to regas it, and then sail an empty ship back to get more LNG. I haven’t find a study that shows total % consumed in this process, but it may take up to 20-25% of the energy delivered just do fuel this process!

So you picked ONE location where the port entry is too shallow to allow loaded LNGCs to enter.
That doesn’t mean that ALL places were FSRUs are operating, or planned to be operating, is the same.

That is true, one terminal is not enough to replace what could have been transported by Nordstreem 1 & 2 pipelines alone.

You mean; if you can solve only 6% of a problem you shouldn’t even try??

PS> Lubmin is where the Nord Stream pipelines terminate. Some of the infrastructure for defunct NS2 will be reused for the LNG terminal.

IDK, was it the consensus of experts or was it just conventional wisdom? I’ve haven’t been following this story but isn’t the question in two parts? The technical side of just building the thing and the regulatory side?

Sounds like the expertise needed to judge how long this job would take is knowledge of recent changes in the regulatory framework specific to this project.

The experts I referred to are the most knowledgeable minds on the planet: Gcaptain posters, who regularly dispense top-flight medical, legal, aviation, construction and dating advice with unfailing accuracy.


The gcaptain expurts are correct, and you are wrong. LNG terminals have not been built in Europe quickly. Docks that have a pipe to connect to FSRU ships have been built. There is a substantial difference, and it is not a matter of semantics.

German colonel on the phone to his general, invasion of Normandy 1944:
“Yes, they are unloading tanks, jeeps and artillery by the hundreds right on the beach! But do not worry! They are using something called a “Mulberry”. Not a real dock. And only so little of a Mulberry. So we are safe!”

Do you know the price difference between buying pipeline gas from the same continent vs shipping LNG halfway around the world?

I’m still trying to find hard figures on the total % of energy consumed for the process to go from gas to LNG to ship to drive across the ocean to gasify and pump ashore. My wild guess is 20-30%, minimum.

But you know all about LNG, FSRU’s, and ports in euroland.

I know one thing. Germany is Putin’s bitch as long as they buy gas from him. Putin yanks Europe’s chain and they squeal. Some people find that intolerable.

If the local gas station owner beat up my neighbor and raped his wife I’d drive across town and pay twice as much for my gas, rather than buy from him.

Some people are funny that way.

1 Like

Electricity prices are up 2-3x starting Jan 1 in Germany. Factories have shut down and more will shut down due to extreme energy prices. Germany shut down its coal and nuclear plants over the last 10-15 years. This disaster was a long time in the making.

Only if it was on the news.

Then, only if it was on the correct news. If the correct news reported that your neighbor actually fell down the stairs contrary to initial reports and anonymous sources familiar with the matter said it was actually surprise sex, not rape, you wouldn’t pay any attention to the matter.

Gas station reporting is funny that way.

The interesting thing about the Ukraine war and energy is that (nearly) everyone has a vote.

Germany (and Europe) can vote to cut-off aid to Ukraine. War over.
American voters can rise in a blue wave and vote out pro-Ukrainian politicians. War over.
Ukrainians can frag their COs and capitulate. War over.
Only one vote in Russia–Putin’s, but it’s a big vote. He can decide to withdraw his army tomorrow and declare victory. War over.

Everyone gets a vote (except the Russians).

Don’t bother you will never understand the commodities market. I learned that when I took of load of 6 oil from San Pedro to Martinez, went to anchor for a day, loaded 6 oil from the same refinery we discharged to and took it to San Pedro to the same terminal we had loaded from a few days ago.


LOL that’s quite a great story for the WTF?!? column.

I don’t mean to understand the $$ of the commodities market (LNG in particular). Instead, I want to know the raw energy consumed for the liquefaction, shipping, and re-gas/delivery in % of total gas pumped from the ground.

Muh LNG is super green and putin bad, but what if it takes 40% of the actual energy to just get it to europe? Seems pretty silly.