Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Natural Gas Thread Pt. 2

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Re: This Natural Gas Find Could Completely Change the World

Unread postby diemos » Sun 03 Nov 2013, 18:15:45

Why can't they ever use an accurate title for their article?

"This Natural Gas Find Could Slightly Delay the Exhaustion of our Resources"

There, fixed that for you.
User avatar
diemos
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: Fri 23 Sep 2005, 03:00:00

Re: This Natural Gas Find Could Completely Change the World

Unread postby Graeme » Sun 03 Nov 2013, 18:38:30

Yes, it is an unfortunate title but please read rest of article. There are two issues described - one geopolitical and the other cost of NG.

Thirty trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 600 million barrels of oil is not a monumental amount in terms of the global energy landscape. But the combination of the size of the find, its proximity to a major demand center (Europe), and the fact that it's found in Israel could lead to several issues that might leave some major oil and gas powers not too happy.


More importantly, though, Noble estimates that Israeli and Cypriot LNG terminals could together undercut both American and Australian LNG export prices, which could drive down natural gas costs for Europe. This could reduce the profitability of major LNG players like Qatar, where ExxonMobil has a 25%-30% working interest in two of that nation's largest LNG terminals.
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13258
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: This Natural Gas Find Could Completely Change the World

Unread postby tim89 » Mon 04 Nov 2013, 11:22:48

diemos wrote:Why can't they ever use an accurate title for their article?

"This Natural Gas Find Could Slightly Delay the Exhaustion of our Resources"

There, fixed that for you.


That sounds far more accurate.
tim89
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue 03 Sep 2013, 09:13:50

Re: This Natural Gas Find Could Completely Change the World

Unread postby rollin » Mon 04 Nov 2013, 23:23:38

So are they going to sell the natural gas to pay for solar panels and converting their energy and transportation systems? If they just burn it they will end up in the same place just years later.
Once in a while the peasants do win. Of course then they just go and find new rulers, you think they would learn.
rollin
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 294
Joined: Thu 06 Dec 2012, 18:28:24

Re: This Natural Gas Find Could Completely Change the World

Unread postby FoxV » Thu 07 Nov 2013, 12:04:23

With a name like Leviathan, it has to be big

I love that one. Nope, with a name like leviathan it means somebody gave it a name like leviathan.

35Tcf and 600Mbbl is inconsequential on the world stage and not even worth discussing. Start adding 0s to those numbers and we have something to talk about.

just for a matter of perspective, officially Russia, Europe's biggest supplier, alone has 1600Tcf of gas and 60B (that's Billion with a B) barrels of oil (unofficial and fracking resources could put both these numbers much higher)

So "completely change the world" headline is quite laughable and makes me suspicious the author is trying to sell something
FoxV
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1321
Joined: Wed 02 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Canada

After Natural Gas?

Unread postby JonFreise » Tue 17 Dec 2013, 17:03:15

Hi Everyone,

I am trying to post new content on The Oil DrumS ( theoildrums.com) every Tuesday in the form of a single graph, chart, or item, with an attached question. One of the things I enjoyed most of the original Oil Drum was the collaborative way that people worked on reasoning out solutions, etc together.

Today the item is After Natural Gas and it posts a 2009 IEA estimate of the cost of producing natural gas from the Barnett Shale. This price may reach $12 to $14 per Mbtu (roughly per 1000 cf or 1 Mcf).

What will people do? What will switching energy sources do for urban air quality? Are we all headed for a choked China quality of life? If not, what will we need to do instead?

-Jon

ps: We are also trying to post new content every Thursday. This week it will be a discussion of the Future of US Transportation post peak oil.
JonFreise
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat 14 Dec 2013, 19:10:06

Re: After Natural Gas?

Unread postby Pops » Tue 17 Dec 2013, 17:20:51

So Jon your point here is just to advertise your site?

Kinda rude.

We generally delete spam and spammers.
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19746
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: After Natural Gas?

Unread postby John_A » Wed 18 Dec 2013, 00:23:51

JonFreise wrote:Today the item is After Natural Gas and it posts a 2009 IEA estimate of the cost of producing natural gas from the Barnett Shale. This price may reach $12 to $14 per Mbtu (roughly per 1000 cf or 1 Mcf).

What will people do?


Not listen to the IEA when it comes to shale gas, for one. I recommend these guys instead, they did a good job. They made plenty of economic estimates, and $12-$14 per MCF is ridiculous.

http://www.utexas.edu/news/2013/02/28/n ... ough-2030/

JonFreise wrote:ps: We are also trying to post new content every Thursday. This week it will be a discussion of the Future of US Transportation post peak oil.


This one should be good for discussion for more than a week. Domestic energy production, here we come!

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/
45ACP: For when you want to send the very best.
John_A
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2011, 21:16:36

Re: After Natural Gas?

Unread postby JonFreise » Thu 19 Dec 2013, 15:50:46

Thanks for the link!

Last I looked they had not published the backup data yet. EUR distributions, by country, well costs, etc. Looks like a little more information is leaking out. That should be good for a few posts.
JonFreise
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat 14 Dec 2013, 19:10:06

Re: After Natural Gas?

Unread postby John_A » Thu 19 Dec 2013, 17:31:39

JonFreise wrote:Thanks for the link!

Last I looked they had not published the backup data yet. EUR distributions, by country, well costs, etc. Looks like a little more information is leaking out. That should be good for a few posts.


Their EUR distributions are by groups, they basically used a geologic overlay to grade all the areas, and assigned EURs by area. They did them well by well but then created type curves for each group. They gave me the impression while explaining the method that they might not be releasing well by well level detail, similar to how the USGS does their assessments there is an issue about having created a "drill here" map and the ensuing fight with their stakeholders, and it isn't a fight either of these groups really wants.
45ACP: For when you want to send the very best.
John_A
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2011, 21:16:36

Re: After Natural Gas?

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Thu 26 Dec 2013, 20:46:09

Time will tell when "after" happens. For decades I've heard stories about the truly huge NG reserves that were stranded in this area. At $20+ billion it's telling that they haven't officially killed the project. Just a matter of time for the economics to get right. Interesting side note that the First Nation is one of the players.

CALGARY, Alberta, Dec 24 (Reuters) - Imperial Oil Ltd has upped its cost estimate for the Mackenzie Gas Project in Canada's far north by about 40 percent because of rising prices for materials and labor, meaning the entire project would cost more than C$20 billion ($18.82 billion) if it goes ahead. Imperial, 69.6-percent owned by Exxon Mobil Corp, said it has still not decided whether to proceed with the long-delayed project given the weak state of the North American natural gas market. Imperial is the lead company in the Mackenzie Gas Project consortium, which also includes ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil Canada, Royal Dutch Shell PLC and the Aboriginal Pipeline Group. "The Mackenzie Gas Project proponents have not yet made a decision to construct the project because of the current natural gas market conditions," Imperial said in a filing to Canada's National Energy Board (NEB).

The project involves building a 1,196-kilometre (750-mile) pipeline system along the Mackenzie Valley in the Northwest Territories to link natural gas wells in the far north to southern markets. It has been beset by delays and rising costs as well as concerns about North American gas prices, which have dived in recent years due to rapid development of shale supplies. Imperial Oil said cost estimates for the gas-gathering system and Mackenzie Valley pipeline have increased to a total of C$16.1 billion, compared with a 2007 estimate of C$11.3 billion. That does not include the cost of developing three natural gas anchor fields in the Mackenzie Delta on the Beaufort Sea coast, which in 2007 Imperial put at close to C$5 billion. The company did not provide an updated total cost estimate for the entire project but it would have to be more than C$20 billion now, even if the gas-field estimate has not risen. Imperial's 2007 estimate for the entire project was $16.2 billion. Increasing costs for materials and labor are problems that could haunt other major energy infrastructure projects being proposed in Canada, including Enbridge Inc's Northern Gateway pipeline, which was given the green light by the NEB last week. The tight labor market in Western Canada, home to the country's vast oil sands, is a persistent headache for energy producers building new oil and gas projects.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: After Natural Gas?

Unread postby Plantagenet » Thu 26 Dec 2013, 23:06:11

Obama says we've got a 100-year-long supply of NG. If it really does last that long it's impossible to say what energy source would be tapped after NG----at the rate technology is advancing the world will be a very different place in 100 years :idea:
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26607
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: After Natural Gas?

Unread postby Graeme » Mon 03 Feb 2014, 18:52:45

Natural Gas Isn’t a Bridge Fuel, It’s a Gateway Drug

In his State of the Union, President Obama added to the conventional wisdom that supplanting coal with natural gas will act as a bridge toward a climate solution. Unfortunately, gas is more of a gateway drug than a bridge to a clean energy future.

1) It’s still a major greenhouse gas. Sure, natural gas is cleaner than coal, but that’s setting a pretty low bar. Even if my shit smells sweeter than most, it’s still shit.

Natural gas powered electricity still pours 1.22 lbs of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere for every kilowatt-hour of electricity it produces. That’s 6 tons of CO2 per year from every household in America if its electricity were completely generated with natural gas.

And that’s the emissions from the stuff that actually gets to the power plant. The EPA has collected industry-reported data suggested that leakage from the drilling, production, and pipeline process runs close to 1.5 percent. Other studies show much higher leakage rates. At a 2.7 percent leakage rate, gas is no better than coal for the climate.

2) Gas for electricity competes with gas for heating (and gas for transportation). The recent “polar vortex” events have meant spikes in home heating costs. As Forbes notes, “The cold affected electricity generation systems, particularly natural gas, in the Mid-Atlantic and the Northeast such that supply weakened and prices skyrocketed. In New England, natural gas faltered so much that regional grid administrator ISO-New England had to bring up dirtier coal and oil plants to try to make up the difference.”

With gas prices as volatile as history shows (data below from EIA), increasing gas reliance in sectors other than home heating (e.g. electricity, transportation) is just asking for Oil Crisis v2.

3) In electricity and transportation, we have much cleaner options. If you want a cleaner way to heat your home than natural gas, you’re going to have to pay a lot more. Solar hot water, geothermal, and other renewable options are not yet cost competitive.

But in the electricity market, renewables are more cost-effective than natural gas. Wind power is routinely the lowest cost wholesale power, as the following cost comparison from investment bank Lazard (from 2011) illustrates.

Solar power plants are competitive in a different way. They tend to deliver power right when natural gas power plants operate, at periods of peak demand (which is, in part, why a judge recently told a Minnesota utility to buy solar instead of building new natural gas power plants). Even back in 2011, California utilities were buying energy from solar on long-term contracts for less than the cost of energy from natural gas power plants.

Furthermore, because they have zero fuel cost, wind and other renewables tend to exert downward pressure on wholesale electricity costs, as shown in the following graphic.

In transportation, natural gas loses to electric vehicles. Natural gas vehicles can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20-30 percent over gasoline vehicles, but electric vehicles would lower emissions by 50-75% in most regions of the country, and they get better as grid electricity gets cleaner. And electric vehicles cost less per mile driven (5¢ compared to 6.7¢ for natural gas). Additionally, why build an entirely new refueling network for natural gas vehicles when every gas station and home in America already has a power outlet?

4) Building natural gas infrastructure chains us to a carbon-based energy future for 50 years. Electric utilities build power plants with 50 year life expectancies, same for gas companies and pipelines. Every dollar invested in dirty gas infrastructure is a dollar not spent building solar and wind farms, not spent researching battery technologies, and not spent helping communities capture the most of their local energy dollar. And it’s committing us to burn more natural gas for decades, during a time which greenhouse gas emissions must fall precipitously to avoid the major consequences of climate chaos.

A Relapse

Expanding natural gas use in electricity and transportation is risky, it’s dirty, and — most of all — it’s unnecessary.

The electricity sector is already undergoing a rapid transformation to a carbon-free system, driven by renewable energy standards and rapidly falling costs for wind and solar power. Converting coal plants to natural gas makes short-term sense, but building new fossil fuel infrastructure when we have free-fuel renewables is inane.

The transportation sector has already identified a low-carbon alternative to gasoline vehicles with an in-place fuel network. Electric vehicles will only get more efficient and cleaner as they grow in numbers and as the grid gets greener.

Americans are finally on a course to wean ourselves from an unhealthy addiction to fossil fuels in two major sectors of our economy. Natural gas isn’t a bridge, it’s a relapse. And it’s time we admit it.


renewableenergyworld
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13258
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: After Natural Gas?

Unread postby Plantagenet » Mon 03 Feb 2014, 18:59:43

Graeme wrote:The transportation sector has already identified a low-carbon alternative to gasoline vehicles with an in-place fuel network. Electric vehicles ....[/url]


Most of the electricity that powers EVs comes from burning coal and NG. An EV using electricity from coal can actually release MORE carbon than a gasoline car. 8)
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26607
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: After Natural Gas?

Unread postby Graeme » Mon 03 Feb 2014, 19:36:16

SolarCity to Make Solar-Powered Electric Vehicle Charging Available Across its Service Territory

Now more Americans than ever will be able to “drive on sunshine”, by charging their electric cars with solar power, and save up to 77 percent on fuel costs. SolarCity has partnered with industry pioneer ClipperCreek to provide electric vehicle (EV) chargers compatible with all new EVs. SolarCity will initially install ClipperCreek EV chargers through its 24 operations centers nationwide, making it the largest single provider of EV, solar and energy efficiency services in the U.S.


solarcity

Honda MC-β will use solar-powered chargers in 'micro' EV tests

Honda is envisioning what it calls a CO2-free society and, not surprisingly, it's a rather sunny one, in one Japanese city, at least. The Japanese automaker is kicking off a test program with the micro-electric-vehicle that will use power generated via photovoltaic energy collected and stored at EV charging stations. Yes, the big old sun will power those little-bitty MC-β cars.

MC-β is shorthand for "Micro Computer Beta" and the car is certainly an appropriate vehicle for these tests. The car is 98 inches long (about eight inches shorter than a Smart ForTwo) and has a 43-mile-per-hour top speed as well as an electric motor that delivers a meager eight horsepower. The car is designed to meet Europe's quadricycle regulations and has a 50-mile single-charge range. No word on if or when it'll go into production, of course, but Honda and Toshiba are working with Japan's Miyakojima City on the project, with Toshiba responsible for building three solar-powered EV-charging stations.

The Japanese automaker unveiled the latest incarnation of the 1+1 tandem-seating-arrangement MC-β last fall. You can see our "Quick Spin" impressions of the model here and read Honda's press release below.


autoblog
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13258
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Price of Oil where Natural Gas becomes an alternative fuel?

Unread postby mmasters » Mon 21 Nov 2016, 15:22:49

At what price of oil will natural gas will become an alternative fuel to oil? I'm speaking especially for transportation. Just pulling a guess here but I'm thinking oil at $150 will bring on a new wave of natural gas vehicles in America. I'm also wondering how long natural gas could power the economy. 20-30 years?
User avatar
mmasters
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2272
Joined: Sun 16 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Mid-Atlantic

Re: Price of Oil where Natural Gas becomes an alternative fu

Unread postby sparky » Mon 21 Nov 2016, 16:58:28

.
the issues are ,

- available supply network ( can you refuel within the driving range )
- energy density (total weight of the container + delivery system +engine versus torque output )
- price of the vehicle , price of the maintenance , price of the fuel

this is valid for any propulsion system

LPG has been in use for a long time , it liquefy easily
natural gas ( methane ) is more tricky due to the higher liquefaction cost and or higher pressure container
User avatar
sparky
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3587
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Sydney , OZ

Re: Price of Oil where Natural Gas becomes an alternative fu

Unread postby Pops » Mon 21 Nov 2016, 17:12:57

Really this is all up in the air (sorta speak) depending on the new administration, at least in the US. Lots of oil people in there already, and anything GW is the third rail of R politics.

Like Pete said, in the sense that elect is easier I'd guess nat gas will more likely continue replacing coal for generation than directly in vehicles. Not that we'll be switching away from coal, heaven forbid.

No infrastructure required, just plug in to a 120v outlet and it charges most or all the way in 12 hours.
Right?
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19746
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: Price of Oil where Natural Gas becomes an alternative fu

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Mon 21 Nov 2016, 17:21:51

Pops wrote:Like Pete said, in the sense that elect is easier I'd guess nat gas will more likely continue replacing coal for generation than directly in vehicles. Not that we'll be switching away from coal, heaven forbid.

No infrastructure required, just plug in to a 120v outlet and it charges most or all the way in 12 hours.
Right?

For a PHEV like the Volt, no problem. For a BEV, you're only going to get 50ish miles in 12 hours (for the average car/light truck, which is heavier than the Volt (with current battery technology). Say a minivan to cart around the family, for example.

So unless something changes, for when you don't want to drive far, a regular 120v outlet is fine. And for a PHEV which has no range limitations, it's REALLY fine, as worst case, you burn an extra gallon or two of gasoline now and then.

However for the BEV, when you're out of range you're out of luck, which is why the demand is so strong for 200+ (and 300+ is better) mile range for real world driving.

So for that you need at least a 240V plug, and preferably a fast (generally commercial) charger. Although, I still would be concerned about using fast chargers regularly on a battery which I wanted to last for a decade or more -- another reason I'm leaning toward a PHEV and 120V charging as a transitional move -- while the whole charging standards and battery life issues for BEV's get worked out en masse, in the real world.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 10142
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 21:26:42
Location: Central KY

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 38 guests