Market Prices, Infrastructure Constraints, and Analysts’ Calculations Render the Deal Economically Unrealistic
  • Sepia@mander.xyzEnglish
    15·
    6 months ago

    This was clear from the very beginning, all analysts said that (including those from Kpler). Neither US exports nor EU demand can support the envisioned 750 billion over three years by any reasonably expected scenario.

    During his first term as US president, Trump also made an energy deal with China that was similarly delusional. I don’t remember the numbers, but in the end China bought a small fraction of what was initially ‘agreed’ upon. Also back then, it was clear that China would never have the required demand to live up to the agreement. These things are more political theatre to celebrate a deal than anything else imo.

  • A_norny_mousse@feddit.orgEnglish
    5·
    6 months ago

    After concluding a trade agreement with Washington in August, the EU did increase the physical volumes of US liquefied natural gas it purchased. Falling oil and gas prices, however, meant that the total value of imports was lower than over the same period last year.

    Jillian Boccara, a senior director at Kpler, said the non-binding nature of the trade agreement has had little impact on additional purchases of US commodities.

    She noted that energy supply contracts are concluded on a bilateral basis and driven by economic considerations—including shipping costs and margins—rather than political statements. She also stressed that the announced volume of purchases is “unrealistic”.