move away from nuclear will benefit gas lng, page-34

The Japanese government (according to a newspaper report) has announced that none of Fukishima will be "repaired".

Whilst the long term human cost of Fukishima may well be modest, in the short/medium term you can almost guarantee that replacement generation capacity will be gas powered.

A further issue is that there is a significant proportion of reactors of the same design and the same susceptibility that should be shut down. So there is considerable scope for nuclear to be replaced by gas.

Longer term nuclear may well make a comeback, but the total life-cycle costs could well come into closer scrutiny after the Japanese tax payer has paid for the burial, and then maintenance for 1000's of years of the Fukishima site. And the same arguments that are made against renewables (viz baseload renewables don't exist and are not economic) can be made against thorium and fast breeder reactors.

So in my humble opinion, whilst the recent panic driven enthusiasm for gas may wane, support will come back for gas to be stronger than ever. Still waiting for ESG to have consistently strong support!