by toolpush » Mon 29 Dec 2014, 13:17:12
SeaGypsy.
I still don't understand where you are coming from. I started off agreeing LPG was on the down hill run is Oz, but commented that Woodside was exporting LPG, and mentioned LNG in truck use in Australia. Which are correct statements.
You claimed in a side swipe, that I didn't know what I was talking about. That's what got me pissed off???? And for some reason you still think I pushing LPG? In that comment you showed your ignorance that Woodside exported LPG. And you started claiming that Nat gas required a long stroke engine. Which I am still waiting for an explanation as to why.
Now you are are branching off into CTL and GTL, you forgot UCG, and how about XTL for a laugh. You have pre-judged my position assuming what I must be thinking. Please don't just read what I write.
You may have been around here for awhile, but I don't think that gives you the right to be rude and arrogant and jump to conclusions just because you are too tide up up in your own agenda. I too was working a 12hr day yesterday, in and out of the office, and what was suppose to be a short little comment a thread turned into a marathon.
If you are still reading, and interested in my opinion, Nat gas can have an impact on oil use, but it is not going to be in a 5+l/100 Mazada 3, but at the other end of the spectrum. Environment as well oil cost have the shipping industry building ships with Nat Gas/diesel engines. It is mainly starting in the ferry market, but Maersk have built their latest container ships ready to convert once more infrastructure is in place. Stationary power generation, as in the power for land based drilling rigs are using a combination of LNG or CNG. The North American rail companies have all bought prototypes of LNG powered engines, and the US trucking industry has started using CNG and some LNG.
So that is my opinion, which doesn't count for much as everyone has one.
good night