While natural gas can be liquefied, the infrastructure for LNG is much less mature than for gas pipelines. You still need to have the LNG terminals to be able to import the gas (and also at the export terminals as well).

Historically, LNG import terminals are concentrated in East Asia, which is generally too far away from major gas producers for a pipeline to be worthwhile to build but the energy consumption was high enough to warrant investing in such infrastructure. The US also built several LNG import terminals, but then the fracking boom caused so much natural gas to be produced that several of these were converted into LNG export terminals instead.

One of the side effects of the costs of building LNG infrastructure is that natural gas prices are very heavily regionalized: natural gas is far cheaper in the US (where it's pipeline delivery) than it is in Japan (with LNG imports).

Thanks, this explains a lot; Do you think it's reasonable to assume that due to pipeline closures and Russian isolation, gas prices will keep rising? I'm reading up on this selfishly - as i purchased some natural gas stocks like $OVV and $AR as the conflict was unwinding. Is LNG route open for Russia? Seems like it's their only option at this point. And Pipelines are simply not safe as it should be easy to sabotage them for the enemy combatants. I also noticed that in EU there are rumblings about legislation that would force Gas companies to be taxed at a higher rate to continue to pave the way for green energy. Not sure what are the prospects of this in the US.

In the near term (days to weeks, maybe a few months), I would expect gas prices to be more likely to rise rather than fall. I can't speculate well about longer term because there are too many variables in play: while peak demand could be relatively well-forecasted based on climate change legislation, the supply side of the equation is difficult to forecast.

> Is LNG route open for Russia?

I am not an expert on these affairs, but I believe Russia doesn't have a lot of LNG export capability at the moment, and LNG export terminals are not something quickly built. It's more likely to me that Russia shifts its gas exports away from Europe and into China via existing pipelines, rather than investing in LNG export capabilities.

Europe does have lots of LNG terminals, but no idea about Russia's export side. Here's a 2015 map of the European terminals: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Existing-and-planned-LNG...

(Some regions are sparse because don't really use gas outside specialized industrial uses)

It is more expensive. The reason why Lithuania and Poland built LNG terminals is not because it is economical or fun compared to pipelines. It is a pure sunk cost. The reason is to secure their supply incase Russia wants to exert influence through the gas supply like it did with Ukraine until 2015 when Ukraina started buying all gas from the EU instead.

They therefore cap the price they pay to what is available on the open LNG market, if the regular supply does not come through.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_gas_dis...

This is like comparing buying bottled water instead of using the taps in your house. Yes, technically you can do this, but transporting that bottled water is painful, and at the scale of a whole country doing it, is a huge logistical challenge. You could eventually get to the point where LNG replaced the pipelines, but that's not going to happen overnight, and the European energy grids need to heat homes this winter.

That's not quite it. The bottled water / tap water comparison is still transporting exactly the same commodity. Liquefied natural gas, however, is much denser than its non-liquefied equivalent.

Per Wikipedia, Nordstream 1 can deliver 55 G(m^3)/yr of natural gas. Per a US government source (https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=50598), the United States has an LNG export capacity of about 12 G(ft^3)/day, or about 120G(m^3)/yr.

I imagine the operational costs of a direct pipeline are lower than the cost of liquefaction, transport, and re-gasification, but from the notice that LNG exists this is probably has an O(1) effect on price, not O(10).

Fortunately, Europe is also beginning to exit "this winter," so the energy situation is less dire than if this invasion had occurred in December going into January.

The conversion is wrong. 12 Gf*3 =~ 1.2 Gm*3

That would be f^2 => m^2, wouldn't it? You divide by ... 35 to go from cubic feet to cubic meters.

GP did that while also going from day to year, and the math checks out

LNG also could be a contract.