[DesertRhino]

It would be good for us, but imagine the hoops we would have to go through to establish the infrastructure to ship LNG by ship to the EU in the quantities that replace a pipeline.

And LNG by ship is way more dangerous and expensive.
But it would be good for us if we could get the environuts out of the way.

[thackney]

LNG by ship is way more dangerous and expensive.

While LNG is far more expensive, LNG is not dangerous. LNG will not even ignite. It first has to be vaporized and then diluted down to 5~15% concentration with air. Being lighter than air, it rises quickly up and away from the surface.

[FreeReign]

It would be good for us, but imagine the hoops we would have to go through to establish the infrastructure to ship LNG by ship to the EU in the quantities that replace a pipeline. And LNG by ship is way more dangerous and expensive. But it would be good for us if we could get the environuts out of the way.

Yes, I would think it would be more expensive for Europe to receive shipments of LNG from the US.

However Russia doesn't have the means to deliver LNG to China at this point.

My point is, if Russia shuts down LNG to parts of Europe, they can not immediately pivot and send it off to China.