Liquefied Natural Gas Development: Overview and the Growth of Future Gas Supply for the North American Market
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The business of liquefied natural gas (LNG) has very quickly become a topical and important energy concern. While the liquefication process has been developed and refined for a number of decades and importation of LNG is an accepted practice in the Middle East, Japan, Korea and parts of Europe, it is a relatively new source of supply in North America. However, increased North American demand for natural gas, coupled with diminishing production from accessible basins in Western Canada and the reduced costs and efficiencies of ships, liquefaction plants and storage terminals, have rendered LNG a viable and price competitive supply alternative. The LNG industry provides unique challenges to producers, regulators, consumers and stakeholders. Producers must not only negotiate development, joint venture and sale and purchase agreements, but also arrange for shipping and transportation and terminal services agreements. In North America, while regulators have divided jurisdiction over LNG terminal facilities on the basis of the location of the facility, the stage of production and the degree of integration with related infrastructure, they also appear to be encouraging further development by facilitating regulatory approval. As the Fairwinds and Qatar Petroleum projects demonstrate, the evolution of the LNG industry is dependent upon a delicate collaboration of governments, regulators, producers, financiers, consumers and stakeholders.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".