Why we should crack on with LNG terminal

JOE BIDEN channelled his inner Barack Obama in Brussels by warning Russian tyrant Vladimir Putin that using chemical weapons in Ukraine would lead to an instant and proportional military response from Nato.

The hope is that if Vlad the Bad goes ahead and uses these catastrophic, illegal weapons to kill thousands of Ukrainians, that Biden will, unlike his old boss Obama, act on his ‘red line’ injunction.

And if that happens, all bets are off. There is no knowing where this conflict will go then, and ultimately whether nuclear weapons will be used.

By that stage the jump in energy prices will be the least of our troubles.

The big ticket item for EU leaders is what should be done about that €33.5bn paid over to Putin each year for his oil and gas – and whether that should be stopped.

Poland thinks the EU should bite the bullet now and put up with shortages in the short term while alternative energy sources are arranged.

Belgian prime minister Alexander De Croo best explained EU resistance to a ‘cold turkey’ approach by saying: ‘We are not at war with ourselves. Sanctions must always have a much bigger impact on the Russian side than on ours.’

However, this analysis doesn’t stand up well to examination, essentially because it justifies the EU continuing to pay Putin vast sums of money which is then used to kill Ukrainians.

Further, President Biden’s commitment to provide liquefied gas to Europe to allow Putin’s pipeline to be cut off will take between two and five years because of the lack of terminals. (More reasons to get on with building Kerry’s planned LNG terminal).