[ROCKMAN]

P - "I don't see any mad rush among average Americans, Canadians, Brits, Japanese etc. etc to give up on their little piece of BAU either". And they are TPTB IMHO. Me and the rest of the oil patch are their slaves. Damn well paid slaves these days but that hasn't always been the case. LOL.

[Synapsid]

Plantagenet,

Yup. And those coal trains to BC ports run right up the Puget Lowland here in Washington, to get there.

mutter, mutter

[dissident]

“Coal will not fill the gap from declining oil production. “ Won’t fill the gap??? Given that global coal production has increased about 70% since 2000 it seems to be doing a fair job of it already with rather solid predictions that it will be doing it even more so as we go forward.

I think you are confusing the marginal gap filling in the last 13 years to the massive hole filling that will simply not occur in the future. Tanada already answered: we have been on a plateau. The plateau will collapse and then it will become crystal clear just how much coal can fill. We will not be flying across the oceans on coal.

“Having shifted a lot of energy intensive industry abroad, the USA cannot just worry about the reduced local consumption, it has to worry about the energy consumption in places like China.” Apparently that concern has led to a 500% increase in US coal exports to China with pending approval from the US govt to increase the number of coal export terminals on the west coast.

China gets most of its coal elsewhere. So far it can find both coal and oil for its needs. This will not be the case in 20 years.

None of which is to say your point about the damage from burning coal isn’t valid. It’s just that so far those concerns are not an issue for either the coal producers, like the US, or the coal consumers, like China.

So far coal has been a side show for the global economy. The case that coal will seamlessly replace oil has not been made at all. It is right up there with the rest of the BAU delusions.

[Plantagenet]

The case that coal will seamlessly replace oil has not been made at all.

No one is making such a case.

Transitioning to NG and coal and renewable energy from oil will be difficult and expensive.

[Plantagenet]

Coal will soon replace oil as the world's leading fossil fuel

Coal on track to replace oil as world's leading fossil fuel by 2020


The return of King Coal --- coal to replace oil as leading fossil fuel by 2020.

[ROCKMAN]

One more opinion - Coal: It's the World's Most Hated Natural Resource ... and It's a Buy From: http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/11/12/ ... nvestment/

If I had to point to a segment of the natural resources sector with the lowest investor sentiment right now, it might well be coal. Coal is thought of as antiquated and brutish, a relic that will soon be excised from the ranks of global energy markets. It's easy to see why. On the surface, there's a lot to dislike about coal. The biggest strike against the industry is environmental. This month, the news has been rife with stories about record air pollution nearly shutting down a number of cities in northern China.

Whether it's for these environmental reasons -- or simply a matter of economics -- there's a sense that the world is turning away from coal. Since 2009, China has been the driving force in global coal markets. Coal imports in that country exploded during the past five years, jumping to a peak of 35 million metric tons per month in December 2012. That's a 1,500 percent increase from 2008 levels. Although imports are holding at a relatively high level, the days of explosive increases in import demand appear to have passed. Thermal prices peaked at $140 per metric ton back in 2008 when Chinese import demand began to surge. But today thermal coal has fallen back to half that level -- currently trading around $60 per metric ton on average globally.

Big consumers such as China and Japan are making an effort to move away from the fuel, leaving little to drive the market. But…changes in technology and some ground-moving shifts in global consumption patterns could spell better days ahead for these businesses. There's one major reason I think coal stocks could break out of their decade-low trading ranges. Simply put, it's because India's coal industry is imploding. Years of corruption and a bureaucracy as thick as pea soup have hobbled production of the country's mineral riches -- natural gas, iron ore and especially thermal coal.

A consequence of this was that India has struggled to grow its domestic coal production -- at a time when demand from its burgeoning power sector is surging. The situation is becoming dire. More than 20 percent of India's 98 coal-fired power plants are running at critical levels of coal inventory -- meaning less than seven days' worth of supply. Nearly 15 percent are at "super critical" levels, down to less than four days of coal. The coal shortage has a real potential to cripple India's power sector -- a fear that has prompted the country to import coal at a high and accelerating rate. Hard numbers on India's imports are tough to find, but early indications are that India's coal import growth is in fact so explosive that coal market insiders see the nation passing China as the world's No. 1 coal consumer within the next three to five years.

For India to surpass China then, its thermal coal imports needs to surge by at least 65 percent from the previous fiscal year's levels of 90 million metric tons. That's a huge amount of new demand coming into the worldwide market. The last time we got this kind of new import growth globally was in 2008, when China began ramping up its imports. That spurt coincided with a run in thermal coal prices to $140 per metric ton -- double current levels. But to put it simply, if Indian import demand unfolds the way it appears it will -- we could see an unexpected boost to revenues and profits of several key coal producers.

[ROCKMAN]

"The case that coal will seamlessly replace oil has not been made at all. It is right up there with the rest of the BAU delusions". LOL. You would think as many posts as we've had mocking such foolish straw man arguments you would think folks would give them up but apparently not.

Just a reminder about the subject of the thread: What will be the #1 energy source in 20 years? Which, obviously, has nothing to do with anything "seamlessly replacing oil". Perhaps it would be good to start a "What will replace oil" thread so these lost souls have an appropriate place to post. Every "delusion" should have a place to call home. LOL.

[ROCKMAN]

Another opinion. From Rig Zone: Which Big Oil Companies Have the Most Riding on Natural Gas?

Despite its currently depressed price, the future of natural gas looks very bright. Over the next 30 years, global natural gas demand is expected to grow by 65%, according to projections by ExxonMobil. Not only is natural gas today just a fraction of the cost of crude oil on an energy-equivalent basis, but it's also generally accepted to be better for the environment. Owing to its high hydrogen content, natural gas produces about 50% less greenhouse gas emissions than coal and about 30% less than crude oil.

That's why some companies are investing heavily in natural gas and LNG projects right now. Two deserve particular attention: Exxon and Royal Dutch Shell. By 2025, Exxon reckons that gas will overtake coal as the second-most widely used fuel source, pushed by Asian demand that is expected to grow by more than 50% over the next three decades. To capitalize on these expected trends, Exxon made a huge move into natural gas by buying XTO Energy, an independent gas producer, back in 2010 for a record sum of $41 billion. It has also invested heavily in global LNG projects, such as the $52 billion Gorgon LNG complex in Australia, in an effort to continue to expand its worldwide gas portfolio. Indeed, gas now accounts for roughly half of the company's total production and reserves. At present, Exxon boasts one of the largest global LNG positions, with liquefaction capacity of roughly 65 million tons per year. In Qatar, it recently started up four of the largest-producing LNG trains in the world, which have a combined capacity of roughly 31 million tons per year, as part of a joint venture with Qatar Petroleum.

Like Exxon, Shell is also bullish about the future of natural gas. It expects global LNG demand to double by 2025 to roughly 500 million tons a year, which would make it the fastest-growing fuel source. Not surprisingly, it has already invested more than $40 billion on LNG projects and is presently one of the largest producers in the world, commanding an approximately 7% share of the global LNG trade. Shell presently boasts 22 million tons per year of Shell-share liquefaction capacity in Australia, Brunei, Malaysia, Nigeria, Oman, Qatar, and Russia. It also has three LNG projects under way in Australia -- Gorgon, Wheatstone, and the ambitious Prelude floating LNG project -- which should add an additional 7 million tons per year of liquefaction capacity.

While Exxon and Shell's natural gas ventures have proved disappointing so far, considering the poor timing of Exxon's XTO purchase and Shell's write-downs of its North American shale gas assets…they could pay off handsomely over the long run. That's because LNG projects don't see the types of production declines that maturing oil wells do. Instead, they produce at flat levels for extremely long periods of time. They…generate massive amounts of strong and stable free cash flow, which can be reinvested into more lucrative oil projects or be returned to shareholders through share repurchases and dividends. Over the next few years, as the share of Exxon and Shell's production from LNG projects rises, it should help offset the natural decline from both companies' existing oil wells that has resulted in stagnant production growth.

[vision-master]

LENR.....

But there is something going on almost under the radar that could eventually send huge shockwaves around the world. It turns out that evidence strongly suggests that cold fusion/LENR is not a pipe dream after all, and we could be on the cusp of a world changing energy revolution far more significant than shale.

What is the best evidence that the E-Cat is not simply the product of a raving megalomaniac or deluded inventor? E-Cat reactors were independently tested earlier this year by a team of European academics. They tested the performance of three high temperature E-Cat reactors in three separate tests each of which lasted for days. In the first test, the reactor actually melted as the reaction somehow got out of control. In the two subsequent tests when the apparatus was modified, the reactor ran stably at high temperatures for days at a time, and energy output was measured to be at least three times as much as the energy input into the system.

http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/ ... -LENR.html

[dorlomin]

If the mountain will not come to Muhammed, the Muhammed must go to the mountain.

Energy is available in a relatively (not totally yet) cost effective, non carbon\ fossil fuel source.

But it is not in the wet dreary coast lines of the Eastern US seaboard, or the misty lands of NW Europe.

Wind and solar is available in large quantities across Mexico, the SW US, North Africa, Australia, the Gobi and Southern Africa. In the best spots onshore wind and solar are already competitive with current energy costs. But the best places are not where the industry is today.

Capital and people are mobile, I think that as costs for renewables comes down, market forces will push energy intensive industries to the places the energy will be cheapest. Today renewables are seen as subsidy hogs to stick some greenwash over high latitudes, high income consumerist societies. In the future they are likely to be a cheap way of generating power in the low latitudes. Whether they will displace coal as no 1 come 2033, I dont know. But I would not bet against them.

[ROCKMAN]

dorlomin - “In the best spots onshore wind and solar are already competitive with current energy costs. But the best places are not where the industry is today….Capital and people are mobile, I think that as costs for renewables comes down, market forces will push energy intensive industries to the places the energy will be cheapest. Today renewables are seen as subsidy hogs to stick some greenwash over high latitudes, high income consumerist societies.”

That may be true in general but not in Texas. I’ve mentioned before how Texas dominates the wind industry in the US so I won’t go into details again. But the projected growth in the Texas economy and industry demands a significant expansion of electrical generation here. A recent report estimated about a 70% increase in Texas electricity consumption in the next few decades. There’s been a continuous movement of various businesses from other parts of the country to Texas. And while much of the wind power is generated in north and west Texas offshore wind power on the verge of taking off. The first offshore wind turbine pilot project in the US was built off the coast from Galveston just south of the huge e- market in Houston. Another giant wind farm is planned off the coast of Corpus Christi which would feed the growing areas of San Antonio and the state capital at Austin.

Here’s one recent advance - AP: Microsoft Enters 20-Year Deal for Texas Wind Power

It takes a lot of energy to store all the data 1 billion people and 20 million businesses plug into their computers, phones, tablets and gadgets. So as part of an effort to become carbon neutral, Microsoft Corp. has entered a 20-year deal to buy power from a new wind farm in Texas, the first time the tech giant is directly purchasing electricity from a specific source. The deal announced Monday between Microsoft and RES Americas is being funded in part by money collected from a "carbon fee," an internal tax of sorts that the company has been charging its departments for every ton of carbon produced. "We're definitely looking at this as a first of a kind, but it fits into our overall desire to have more control over our energy supply," Janous said.

Construction on RES Americas' $200 million, 55-turbine wind power project, called Keechi, will begin in December and is expected to be operational by June 2015. Microsoft is buying all 430,000 megawatt hours of energy it produces — or enough to power up to 45,000 homes. That's about 5 percent to 10 percent of the company's total electricity consumption. Microsoft declined to say how much it is paying for the 20-year contract. But Robert Bernard, the company's chief environmental strategist, said it is coming out of the carbon fee funds, which Microsoft previously estimated could amount to about $10 million in the first year that ended on June 30. The fees will fund several projects. "It's a sign of the times that the price point for these renewable projects is quite attractive to them," said Rob Morgan, chief development officer for wind and solar developer RES Americas.

Texas is the nation's largest producer of wind energy, but most of that power is created on the wide open, windy prairies of West Texas. The Keechi project, though, is planned for a more densely populated area about 70 miles northwest of Fort Worth, said Shalini Ramanathan, vice president of development for RES in Austin. Microsoft looked at several other states and projects, but chose Texas in part because of a $6.8 billion transmission line project that brings West Texas-generated wind to more power-hungry parts of the state.

Acciona will build the turbine and has a 1300MW backlog for the AW 3000 model destined for wind farms in the US, Canada, Brazil, Mexico, Spain, Poland, Chile and South Africa. Acciona has now supplied or signed contracts for 1.5MW and 3MW turbines totaling more than 1200MW in the US.

[Plantagenet]

No doubt wind and other alternative energy sources are going to be very important in the future. Solar alone is on track to make up 1% of the US energy market.

But NG, coal and oil will support the vast majority of the US energy market for years to come, especially as tight oil production continues to grow.

[vision-master]

You dudes are gonna b outta work.........