[C8]

Per CNBC and man other sources:

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/30/eni-make ... coast.html

Eni ‘supergiant’ gas field discovery a gamechanger: CEO

Eni's discovery of potentially the world's largest natural-gas field off the Egyptian coast will be a gamechanger for Egypt and the Mediterranean in terms of energy stability, the CEO of the Italian energy giant told CNBC on Monday.

On Sunday, Eni said in a press release that it had discovered a "supergiant" gas field that could hold "a potential of 30 trillion cubic feet of lean gas in place." It said the discovery well was located off Egypt's Mediterranean coastline at a depth of 1,450 metres with the prospective Zohr field covering an area of about 100 square kilometres (60 square miles).

Eni said that the discovery could satisfy Egypt's natural gas demand for "decades".

On Monday, Claudio Descalzi, CEO of Eni, told CNBC: "It is changing the game for Egypt…It is very important for Egypt, but also for the Mediterranean in terms of stability."

Descalzi could not give a timeline for when the gas might hit the market, but said developments would be quick as the gas field was in close proximity to Eni's processing facilities.

"It is close to the facilities so the time to market will be very good… that is part of our strategy to…continue to do our exploration in the mature area where we have a deep geographical knowledge and we can take advantage of our facilities and that will make the unit cost in terms of capital very positive," the CEO said.

"I don't want to put a date now but it is a question of a few years to have production—then a full production, that will be a very quick fast track development," Descalzi added.

This will continue the massive downward push of FF fuel prices and possibly give solar and wind strong headwinds to move against in terms of expanding markets. Combined with Iranian oil flooding on the market we may be in for a massive increase in world FF fuel use. Proof that the same tech wizardry that has been lowering the prices of renewable energy also is working its magic on FF.

When oil prices fall the world economy always heats up leading to more births and more consumption.

This is going to be the big story of 2015-2017 IMO- far bigger than minor increases in renewable energy as far as energy volume output on a world scale.

[dissident]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_n ... gas_fields

It is far from the largest by a country mile.

[kublikhan]

From the same article:

Gas has a big future because of the environmental constraints. The new environmental targets for emission will give gas more power because renewable with gas will be the future in terms of the sustainability of our energy system.

This article seems to hold this news as a positive for renewable development, not a negative.

[C8]

From the same article:

Gas has a big future because of the environmental constraints. The new environmental targets for emission will give gas more power because renewable with gas will be the future in terms of the sustainability of our energy system.

This article seems to hold this news as a positive for renewable development, not a negative.

There is the notion that natural gas is somehow helpful for the environment because it emits less CO2 than other FF- it is better than coal and oil but not overall good. Nat. gas folks are good at this sort of logic.

Low natural gas prices will probably lead to more LNG terminals, gas trade and hurt renewable development. Many renewable projects are in rich places where subsidies play a key role. In the third world they cannot afford these subsidies and will go with the cheaper fuel period- gas.

[KaiserJeep]

This is a REAL gas super giant, the planet Jupiter. It is 90% hydrogen overall, and 100% hydrogen in the accessible upper atmosphere, and if we were to send robot "scoop ships" through the upper atmosphere, then liquify the gas and ship it to Earth, we would have access to enough clean fuel that our energy crisis would be over, and the "effluents" of burning hydrogen are pure water vapor.


The answers to ALL of our problems lie in space within our own solar system. Energy, fuel to export to Earth, living space, effectively endless raw materials, enough of everything we need to continue our present growth rate until trillions of humans exist, mostly off the planet.

All we need to know to do this we need already. What keeps us from exploiting the endless resources of space is the apathy, ignorance, and planet-bound imaginations of people like YOU.

Following this path gains us perhaps 300,000 years for the humans to evolve away from our present natures, which are the holdovers from our prior existence as hunter-gatherers.

Hominids that arguably could be called human have existed on Earth for perhaps 200,000 years. During this time, three species of hominid (Cro-Magnon, Neanderthal, and Denisovan) interbred to create the range of the modern human genome. As we populate space, and with the aid of modern genetic modification techniques, we evolve into a species that lives in microgravity and low pressure environments.

Whether or not the nature of the human mind also changes, whether or not we continure unrestrained population growth or achieve a steady state society, is anybody's guess.

[Outcast_Searcher]

This is a REAL gas super giant, the planet Jupiter. It is 90% hydrogen overall, and 100% hydrogen in the accessible upper atmosphere, and if we were to send robot "scoop ships" through the upper atmosphere, then liquify the gas and ship it to Earth, we would have access to enough clean fuel that our energy crisis would be over, and the "effluents" of burning hydrogen are pure water vapor.

Seriously? America, the world's largest economy has given up the ability to send men to space via NASA. And however it's spun, funding was the primary reason.

So where does the IMMENSE capital come from to build the infrastructure to scoop hydrogen from Jupiter, build the hydrogen economy to use it (like a fleet of fuel cell vehicles), etc. AND DO ALL THIS AND KEEP HYDROGEN AFFORDABLE FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS? (Let's remember -- just building a bullet train network seems impossible for the US to fund, when political reality is considered).

Perhaps this will be technologically possible in the next hundred years, but given the complexities and dangers of space travel, and the real world physics and infrastructure problems of making such an operation work -- this plan sounds far less practical to me than covering enough of the earth with solar cells (and maintaining them) to "solve" our energy problems via solar.

Just building a practical space elevator to deal with getting all the needed stuff into and out of space would be a horrendously expensive and difficult project. That would seem to be necessary step one of MANY.

What am I missing?

[tita]

and if we were to send robot "scoop ships" through the upper atmosphere, then liquify the gas and ship it to Earth

You want to ship it with DHL or UPS?

All we need to know to do this we need already. What keeps us from exploiting the endless resources of space is the apathy, ignorance, and planet-bound imaginations of people like YOU.

Reaching space is extremely difficult. Just because of the gravity. Our imagination is boundless, but reality obeys to physics. But what is great with our boundless imagination, is that when hundreds of stupid ideas like yours (people already thought about it) are emitted, sometimes one guy has a true genious thought of something that nobody ever imagined. Ignorance is when you think you know. Intelligence is when you want to know.

[ROCKMAN]

"...the third world they cannot afford these subsidies and will go with the cheaper fuel period- gas." Or coal for the same reason...just as India is doing today.

[kublikhan]

There is the notion that natural gas is somehow helpful for the environment because it emits less CO2 than other FF- it is better than coal and oil but not overall good. Nat. gas folks are good at this sort of logic.

Low natural gas prices will probably lead to more LNG terminals, gas trade and hurt renewable development. Many renewable projects are in rich places where subsidies play a key role. In the third world they cannot afford these subsidies and will go with the cheaper fuel period- gas.

Renewables are growing faster in the developing world than the developed world. Last year there was more renewable capacity added than coal and gas combined. And thanks to increased renewables and energy efficiency, last year was the first time in 40 years that CO2 levels did not increase during a period of economic growth.

The growth in global carbon emissions stalled last year, according to data from the International Energy Agency. It marks the first time in 40 years that annual CO2 emissions growth has remained stable, in the absence of a major economic crisis. Annual global emissions remained at 32 gigatonnes in 2014, unchanged from the previous year.

Global CO2 emissions 'stalled' in 2014

Renewable energy continued to grow in 2014 against the backdrop of increasing global energy consumption, particularly in developing countries, and a dramatic decline in oil prices during the second half of the year. Despite rising energy use, for the first time in four decades, global carbon emissions associated with energy consumption remained stable in 2014 while the global economy grew; this stabilisation has been attributed to increased penetration of renewable energy and to improvements in energy efficiency.

Power: more renewables capacity added than coal and gas combined
Renewables represented approximately 59% of net additions to global power capacity in 2014, with significant growth in all regions.

TOP FIVE COUNTRIES
Investment in renewable power and fuels per unit GDP: Burundi, Kenya, Honduras, Jordan, Uruguay
Hydropower capacity: China, Brazil, Canada, Turkey, India
Solar water heating capacity: China, Turkey, Brazil, India, Germany

WIND POWER: THE CHEAPEST OPTION FOR NEW POWER GENERATION
Wind energy is the least-cost option for new power generating capacity in an increasing number of locations, and new markets continued to emerge in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Asia remained the largest market for the seventh consecutive year, led by China, and overtook Europe in total capacity.

Renewables outpaced fossil fuels for the fifth year running in terms of net investment in power capacity additions. All regions of the world experienced an increase relative to 2013. Investment in developing countries was up 36% from the previous year to USD 131.3 billion. Developing country investment came the closest ever to surpassing the investment total for developed economies, which reached USD 138.9 billion in 2014, up only 3% from 2013. All investment types saw increases over 2013, with asset finance of utility-scale projects accounting for the vast majority of total investment. The year 2014 also saw the creation of two new South-South development banks: the USD 100 billion New Development Bank created by the five BRICS countries, and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank created by 23 Asian countries. The expansion of new investment vehicles for renewables—such as green bonds, yield companies, and crowdfunding—have attracted new classes of capital providers and are helping to reduce the cost of capital for financing renewable energy projects.

Renewables 2015 Global Status Report

[Tanada]

"...the third world they cannot afford these subsidies and will go with the cheaper fuel period- gas." Or coal for the same reason...just as India is doing today.

Exactly, which is why I keep telling people if it is flammable sooner or later humans will burn it.

[waterpowerman1]

This is great, unlimited hydrogen. To burn it you need oxygen. where do we get that? If we burn all this hypothetical hydrogen what are we gonna breath?

[kublikhan]

This is great, unlimited hydrogen. To burn it you need oxygen. where do we get that? If we burn all this hypothetical hydrogen what are we gonna breath?

Depletion of our oxygen supply via combustion of fossil fuels is not a threat. We could burn every last bit of fossil fuel, biomass, etc and still barely dent the world's oxygen supply. There are legitimate reasons not to do this such has pollution, global warming, etc. But depletion of oxygen is not one of them.

With forest resources--"the lungs of the Earth"-- under attack in many regions, some have raised concerns about the planet's oxygen supply. A leading geochemist assesses these claims and finds that we can probably breathe easy.

Many good reasons exist for placing deforestation near the top of our list of environmental sins, but fortunately the fate of the Earth's O2 supply does not hang in the balance. Simply put, our atmosphere is endowed with such an enormous reserve of this gas that even if we were to burn all our fossil fuel reserves, all our trees, and all the organic matter stored in soils, we would use up only a few percent of the available O2. No matter how foolishly we treat our environmental heritage, we simply don't have the capacity to put more than a small dent in our O2 supply.

Et tu, O2?

[C8]

There is the notion that natural gas is somehow helpful for the environment because it emits less CO2 than other FF- it is better than coal and oil but not overall good. Nat. gas folks are good at this sort of logic.

Low natural gas prices will probably lead to more LNG terminals, gas trade and hurt renewable development. Many renewable projects are in rich places where subsidies play a key role. In the third world they cannot afford these subsidies and will go with the cheaper fuel period- gas.

Renewables are growing faster in the developing world than the developed world. Last year there was more renewable capacity added than coal and gas combined. And thanks to increased renewables and energy efficiency, last year was the first time in 40 years that CO2 levels did not increase during a period of economic growth.

The growth in global carbon emissions stalled last year, according to data from the International Energy Agency. It marks the first time in 40 years that annual CO2 emissions growth has remained stable, in the absence of a major economic crisis. Annual global emissions remained at 32 gigatonnes in 2014, unchanged from the previous year.

Global CO2 emissions 'stalled' in 2014

Renewable energy continued to grow in 2014 against the backdrop of increasing global energy consumption, particularly in developing countries, and a dramatic decline in oil prices during the second half of the year. Despite rising energy use, for the first time in four decades, global carbon emissions associated with energy consumption remained stable in 2014 while the global economy grew; this stabilisation has been attributed to increased penetration of renewable energy and to improvements in energy efficiency.

Power: more renewables capacity added than coal and gas combined
Renewables represented approximately 59% of net additions to global power capacity in 2014, with significant growth in all regions.

TOP FIVE COUNTRIES
Investment in renewable power and fuels per unit GDP: Burundi, Kenya, Honduras, Jordan, Uruguay
Hydropower capacity: China, Brazil, Canada, Turkey, India
Solar water heating capacity: China, Turkey, Brazil, India, Germany

WIND POWER: THE CHEAPEST OPTION FOR NEW POWER GENERATION
Wind energy is the least-cost option for new power generating capacity in an increasing number of locations, and new markets continued to emerge in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Asia remained the largest market for the seventh consecutive year, led by China, and overtook Europe in total capacity.

Renewables outpaced fossil fuels for the fifth year running in terms of net investment in power capacity additions. All regions of the world experienced an increase relative to 2013. Investment in developing countries was up 36% from the previous year to USD 131.3 billion. Developing country investment came the closest ever to surpassing the investment total for developed economies, which reached USD 138.9 billion in 2014, up only 3% from 2013. All investment types saw increases over 2013, with asset finance of utility-scale projects accounting for the vast majority of total investment. The year 2014 also saw the creation of two new South-South development banks: the USD 100 billion New Development Bank created by the five BRICS countries, and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank created by 23 Asian countries. The expansion of new investment vehicles for renewables—such as green bonds, yield companies, and crowdfunding—have attracted new classes of capital providers and are helping to reduce the cost of capital for financing renewable energy projects.

Renewables 2015 Global Status Report

This is very true- but liquid natural gas trade infrastructure is ramping up fast- the natural gas production explosion is ahead of the facilities- but that is changing rapidly. Natural gas will mainly feed into the cities of developing nations and renewables are better suited to sparse rural areas- but many developing nations will still not have LNG structures to accept gas

http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles ... 35-says-bp

[Apneaman]

kublikhan, me thinks you are being disingenuous or are ignorant. It's ocean acidification from burning fossil fuels that will reduce the oxygen supply enough to hurt or kill apes


How much do oceans add to world’s oxygen?

"Most of Earth’s oxygen comes from tiny ocean plants – called phytoplankton – that live near the water’s surface and drift with the currents.|

"Bottom line: Tiny ocean plants called phytoplankton contribute 50 to 85 percent of the oxygen in Earth’s atmosphere."

http://earthsky.org/earth/how-much-do-o ... lds-oxygen


That would take a long time to happen, whereas in a matter of decades there will be very places where crops will grow.

[kublikhan]

kublikhan, me thinks you are being disingenuous or are ignorant. It's ocean acidification from burning fossil fuels that will reduce the oxygen supply enough to hurt or kill apes

Apneaman, I think you are being disingenuous or ignorant. Even if every single phytoplankton on earth died from ocean acidification, it would take a long, long time for us all to suffocate to death from lake of oxygen in the atmosphere. Oxygen accumulates in the atmosphere over very long time periods. If such a scenario unfolded, there would be much bigger problems to worry about. Like the fact that everything in the ocean would be dead by that point. Not to mention the billions of people who depend on the ocean for food. That's not even getting into what kind of a mess the land area would be in under such a scenario.

By about 400 million years ago, scientists say, enough oxygen had accumulated in Earth’s atmosphere for the evolution of air-breathing land animals.

How much do oceans add to world’s oxygen?

[kublikhan]

Low natural gas prices will probably lead to more LNG terminals, gas trade and hurt renewable development.

C8, you have this backwards. Low natural gas prices hurt LNG, not help it. Expensive LNG terminals need high gas prices to recoup the large capital costs.

The casualties of cheap oil might include not just drilling rigs and megaprojects for crude, but also tens of billions of dollars in natural gas export facilities planned in the North America and Australia. The price of oil, now roughly half what it was in June, has a two-pronged effect on liquefied natural gas exports. "It starts to kill LNG. Sustained low crude prices would shake up interest in liquefied natural gas. If the world gets into a consensus of oil is $60 forever, we're going to start crossing off LNG facilities. It's much harder for expensive LNG projects to be profitable in a low-price environment."

Lower oil prices could pinch natural gas export plants

The economics behind U.S. gas exports simply aren’t appealing: The price the gas would fetch in Asia is lower than the cost of the gas in the United States, plus the cost to liquefy it and ship it halfway around the world. Even though U.S. companies are building a lot of export capacity — more than 9 billion cubic feet of potential gas exports per day — only a fraction of it may actually be used. “Without higher crude prices, the economic case for Henry Hub-linked exports is currently on the back burner.”

If oil prices languish in the $70 dollar range for decades to come, thanks to plentiful oil from the United States and other places, then LNG exports would never amount to more than a trickle, or about 2 billion cubic feet per day, EIA says.

Why Cheap Oil Is Bad News for U.S. Gas-Export Hopes

New liquefied natural gas export terminals risk delays after prices for the chilled fuel fell to five-year lows in Asia and Europe. U.S. plants not yet approved may be delayed after a price rout, as well as higher build and regulatory costs. Producers from Royal Dutch Shell Plc to Petroliam Nasional Bhd and BG Group Plc delayed spending on LNG projects from the Pacific to North America in the past six months. Global gas-demand growth fell for a second year in 2014.

Sliding Gas Prices May Slow LNG Projects From U.S. to Africa

[ROCKMAN]

k - I understand what you're saying. But actually it isn't low US NG prices that are causing the LNG plant builders to pull back. Their profit margin isn't dependent on domestic NG prices. For instance it doesn't matter if Chenier pays $1 or $10 per mcf of Henry Hub NG because that cost is paid by the LNG buyer. The buyer also pays for the liquafraction, transportation and Chenier profit margin as outlined in a 15 to 20 year contract. The pull back is due to the LNG buyers not willing to sign such contracts. And no ond is going to spend $billions of a facility without those long term GUARENTEED contracts in place.

[kublikhan]

Yeah prices on the buyers end are hitting five year lows. Not exactly the kind of thing you want to see when trying to entice people to sign those contracts. Bottom line: I think LNG has far more to worry about from low gas prices than renewables do.

In a major new report, global investment bank Citigroup has defined the current battle between cheap oil and renewables like wind and solar, to be so fundamental it will define the future of energy. But it says that while the slump in oil and associated gas prices may provide some road-humps for wind and solar, renewables will win out because of basic economics, as well as energy security and environment issues.

“Long term, renewables hold strong appeal as a way for energy importing nations like Japan and Korea to diversify away energy price risk for LNG, coal, and oil. The long-term outlook for renewables remains bright. “Fundamental factors – increasing economic competitiveness, energy security, and environmental goals – all remain potent forces driving ever more rapid adoption of renewable energy globally.”

Wind and solar costs have fallen dramatically, and these cost declines should continue. On an unsubsidised basis, wind farms are getting built at costs below $40/MWh in some regions. Recent solar auctions in the Middle East have produced prices below $60/MWh. “The straightforward answer to whether cheap oil threatens renewables is no. As we noted in this report about low solar costs, and the assessment by the National Bank of Abu Dhabi, oil can no longer compete with solar and wind in electricity economics. “Even with greatly reduced oil prices in the $50-60/bbl range, more mature renewables like wind and solar have little trouble competing with new oil-fired generation in the Middle East. Large-scale solar in the Middle East should be competitive with oil when oil is above around $30, and on-shore wind when oil is above $23. Most of the world’s LNG is sold on an oil-indexed basis, tying the expansion of global LNG projects to the price of oil.

Cheaper gas
The plunging price of oil has caused half of the shale oil rigs in the US to be withdrawn, because shale oil is no longer economic at these low prices. In Texas, Citigroup notes, around one-quarter of the gas supply comes from “associated gas” – from the oil extraction. That means the demise of shale oil will also crimp supplies of gas, putting upward pressure on prices. Already, city utilities such as Georgetown in Texas and large corporate users such as Dow Chemical are choosing wind and solar over gas.

Citigroup says it is very unlikely European renewable energy targets will be meaningfully threatened by lower gas prices, particularly given the strategic benefits of diversification away from oil-indexed imported gas. The same is true in Asia. Citigroup says the recent drop in LNG spot prices has made gas-fired generation newly competitive with large-scale solar, although solar remains cheaper than gas-fired power from oil-indexed LNG. And in China, there is not much gas available in the power sector anyway.

Cheap oil vs wind and solar: fight for future of energy

[Synapsid]

kubli and all (ROCKMAN already knows this):

It's worth pointing out that term "oil-indexed" natural gas. Let's see if I have this straight: Across Asia and I believe in Europe too the price of NG is linked to the price of crude oil. (In the US, it isn't.) As a result, NG prices are quite low now compared to what they were not long ago before the global drop in the price of crudes--back when the numbers indicated that exporting LNG from the US looked to be a growth prospect. Now, with crude prices so low and the indexed NG prices too, buyers in places like South Korea and Japan see US LNG as not being so cheap relative to pipelined NG, and oil, (and coal--it's cheap now as well,) and aren't in such a rush to sign up for long-term contractual obligations that include, as Rockman says, a profit for Cheniere and any other exporters of the stuff.

When oil prices go back up, as they'll have to do in order to save OPEC (hand up, everyone who wants to save OPEC...thought so), global prices for NG will rise too, and LNG from the US will look like a better buy than it does now to potential buyers because the price for US NG doesn't have to rise when the oil price goes up.

Corrections welcome.

[C8]

Low natural gas prices will probably lead to more LNG terminals, gas trade and hurt renewable development.

C8, you have this backwards. Low natural gas prices hurt LNG, not help it. Expensive LNG terminals need high gas prices to recoup the large capital costs.

The casualties of cheap oil might include not just drilling rigs and megaprojects for crude, but also tens of billions of dollars in natural gas export facilities planned in the North America and Australia. The price of oil, now roughly half what it was in June, has a two-pronged effect on liquefied natural gas exports. "It starts to kill LNG. Sustained low crude prices would shake up interest in liquefied natural gas. If the world gets into a consensus of oil is $60 forever, we're going to start crossing off LNG facilities. It's much harder for expensive LNG projects to be profitable in a low-price environment."

Lower oil prices could pinch natural gas export plants

The economics behind U.S. gas exports simply aren’t appealing: The price the gas would fetch in Asia is lower than the cost of the gas in the United States, plus the cost to liquefy it and ship it halfway around the world. Even though U.S. companies are building a lot of export capacity — more than 9 billion cubic feet of potential gas exports per day — only a fraction of it may actually be used. “Without higher crude prices, the economic case for Henry Hub-linked exports is currently on the back burner.”

If oil prices languish in the $70 dollar range for decades to come, thanks to plentiful oil from the United States and other places, then LNG exports would never amount to more than a trickle, or about 2 billion cubic feet per day, EIA says.

Why Cheap Oil Is Bad News for U.S. Gas-Export Hopes

New liquefied natural gas export terminals risk delays after prices for the chilled fuel fell to five-year lows in Asia and Europe. U.S. plants not yet approved may be delayed after a price rout, as well as higher build and regulatory costs. Producers from Royal Dutch Shell Plc to Petroliam Nasional Bhd and BG Group Plc delayed spending on LNG projects from the Pacific to North America in the past six months. Global gas-demand growth fell for a second year in 2014.

Sliding Gas Prices May Slow LNG Projects From U.S. to Africa

Just as fracking has become significantly cheaper due to tech improvements I have no doubts LNG transport tech will follow suit. Never predict tomorrow on today's tech, if the fuel is present and the profit is there then the discoveries follow. In fact, lower gas prices could well drive the whole transport system to new methods and cheaper levels- were talking about floating liquids around the world- not particle physics.

I remember well all those peak oilers who said fracking was doomed at prices under $80 a barrel- this didn't happen. The one mistake doomers do over and over again is underestimate technology change. LNG projects are well on their way- I think these LNG people know what they are doing and trust their inside knowledge of whats coming.

The biggest migration trend of the last 200 years has been urbanization- and its still going on at an incredible rate. Renewable fuels are best suited for sparse populations with plenty of land vs. people- not concentrated mega-cities that need non-intermittent fuels sources for industrial and commercial activity. Gas and nuclear are the only two fuels that can pull of this trick with the least CO2 impact.

You will be reading about the astonishing price declines in LNG delivery just as we have been reading about the price declines in fracking. Capitalism finds a way.