Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
Big deal: (ET) Energy Transfer gives up on the Lake Charles LNG project.
energyflux has warned of mindless LNG expansion since trump got elected, and since this summer has been saying a glut until 2030 is near certain despite datacenter hype. perpetual optimism on profitable fossil from writers like doomsberg have been wrong no matter how much extraneous detail they post.
its a question of how good these LNG companies are in estimating their losses until the other side of the glut. europe is probably ok with regional supply plus the inevitable huge discounts on LNG. instead of invading venezuela, a similar expensive enforcement of russia sanctions from trump may save LNG dreams....hahahha !
Folks on SeekingAlpha are gaga over ET but they seem a bit too cowboyish for my tastes.
I'd rather have a boring stable MLP (EPD, MPLX) or pipeline (WMB) or one with decent growth and and a recent acquisition that supports existing NG infrastructures (WES) than one rushing to build new facilities from scratch. I've owned EPD for ages and WMB for a few years.
Exactly, what happens when government tosses free market principles in the trash and imposes control of important industries. Puts their yuge thumb on the scale. The textbook definition is a "managed economy", like China, who is also prone to these unavoidable excesses.
"Since when was a simple pipeline, with boring utility-style returns and point-to-point delivery, a more attractive investment than an LNG export megaproject that exploits double-digit ROI global arbitrage opportunities?"
"Since when was a simple pipeline, with boring utility-style returns and point-to-point delivery, a more attractive investment than an LNG export megaproject that exploits double-digit ROI global arbitrage opportunities?"
Seems to me they could not find enough other companies to get onboard with helping to pay for the project in Lake Charles. There is already a facility there, but it's not designed for LNG export. I think the Head Honchos decided too much time has passed to make the thing cost-effective, so they gave up. I'm holding just over 1K shares in ET. It is languishing and has been languishing for months, due to the glut of oil, and I suppose natgas, too. I'm continuing to hold, based on the fact that my cost basis is still well below the stock price, these days. Orange Donny has arranged for gas prices at the pump to come down on the Mainland. There is zero positive effect here in Hawaii.
Comments
energyflux has warned of mindless LNG expansion since trump got elected, and since this summer has been saying a glut until 2030 is near certain despite datacenter hype. perpetual optimism on profitable fossil from writers like doomsberg have been wrong no matter how much extraneous detail they post.
its a question of how good these LNG companies are in estimating their losses until the other side of the glut.
europe is probably ok with regional supply plus the inevitable huge discounts on LNG.
instead of invading venezuela, a similar expensive enforcement of russia sanctions from trump may save LNG dreams....hahahha !
https://www.energyflux.news/lng-glut-claims-first-us-scalp/
I'd rather have a boring stable MLP (EPD, MPLX) or pipeline (WMB) or one with decent growth and and a recent acquisition that supports existing NG infrastructures (WES) than one rushing to build new facilities from scratch. I've owned EPD for ages and WMB for a few years.
https://globalmarketbulletin.com/energy-transfer-et-built-one-of-americas-biggest-pipeline-empires-but-can-it-keep-paying-investors/
"Since when was a simple pipeline, with boring utility-style returns and point-to-point delivery, a more attractive investment than an LNG export megaproject that exploits double-digit ROI global arbitrage opportunities?"