[Outcast_Searcher]

3). Geez - how much NG do you want before you consider it viable for exploitation? The 2007 EIA proved reserves annual report shows US dry NG reserves at over 237.7 TCF. And these reserves have increased every year for the last decade and the trend is accelerating. With all the good supply news from shale and horizontal drilling, etc. I think you protest way too much. report link:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natu ... able01.pdf

Reserves do not equal production. There is little evidence that tightly-held shale gas will change our limits much at all.

(Edit - fixed syntax for quote above, when I hit submit instead of review).

So let's see. The signals from the crude oil market (high prices) are vindication of the doomer energy crowd's viewpoint. (I actually happen to agree with this point, insofar as we are at or near a crude oil peak, and that the best first principle means additional oil finds will be on average much more expensive to recover).

But, when the NG market gives a HUGE and sustained signal that all the massive finds and progress via shale NG
means we can expect a LOT more (and likely relatively cheap) NG in our future -- that's just wrong. PSTARR has more insight than the combined wisdom of the global natural gas markets? ("Re: The Wisdom of Crowds")

Sorry - I just can't see selectively picking data points to fit your initial conclusions for each issue as reasonable.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Why is it that you responded only to my last closing comment? Don't you have anything interesting to say about the natural gas conundrum? Yes there is plenty of gas in the world, but it will not replace free-flowing liquid petroleum for reasons I just touched on. The financial collapse is instructive. Our debt-based financial system depends on growth at any cost. And that growth is predicated on growing energy supplies

Um, a bit of patience please. I posted the apology first, as making people mad is NOT my intent here, and to appear to be doing it deliberately is highly counterproductive (IMO). I had posted one point about your amazing assertion that all the shale NG formations will make little difference.


I may respond to other points, but I would like to ponder them a bit first. This isn't speed chess, after all.

[Outcast_Searcher]

2). Despite the range issues, CNG CAN provide a viable car to make roughly 100+ mile trips, which is fine for the normal daily use of a HUGE proportion of drivers. (50 KG tanks and 200 km range is cited as a reasonable compromise). As I said, folks can rent cars for long trips. Or folks could just replace one gasoline car. And as I said, it would be inconvenient.

"Can provide a viable car." But would anyone want or afford it?

The same is said for electric vehicles but that idea has yet to taken flight. Here in America we need 200-300 mile ranges or we would need extra cars Who has room for a 4- or 6- vehicle family fleet? You ask for a different America. I see the same one continuing.

The CNG car affordability question is valid. In "$20 per gallon", which I read recently. Steiner, the author, (who is a peak oiler who thinks we will adapt to solve the problems, though it will be expensive and difficult and change American life radically), thinks it will take at least 3 decades to build out a fleet of electric cars to solve the family transport problem - precisely because they will be so expensive for a long time -- even as gasoline soars towards $20 a gallon.

As I remind you again, like Mr. Steiner, I do ***NOT*** think the transition will be cheap or easy (i.e. convenient). However, I think that people can do arithmetic, and once gasoline gets expensive enough (i.e. averages say over 6 bucks a gallon) people will make the switch out of necessity, once it becomes available.

I don't agree your ongoing assertion (at all) that a big (and I mean very big) segment of Americans can't live with a car with a, say, 120 mile range on a tank of fuel. Will it be inconvenient? Hell yes! For everyone not making very long daily commutes (and who will be able to afford THAT when energy gets expensive?) I maintain that about 120 miles is fine.
If you don't leave the city you live in, it will be plenty 99% of the time. If you commute one way even 80 miles, it will be fine, as long as supplies are reliable.

Again, as I said, it may be inconvenient -- but there are solutions for long trips. Renting seems obvious. I do that on occasion if I'm driving an older car to save money, my car is on the fritz, etc. It takes some planning, but so what?

OR - as I said, one can own one CNG car and one conventional car. A huge proportion of American families have at least two cars, and I doubt many will be willing to give that up. You are presenting inconveniences as showstoppers, as far as the technology, IMO.

(The economic concerns overall of changing from oil are certainly valid - and I will address that in another post).

[outcast]

Furthermore, no country or people has ever operated run a modern industrial infrastructure (long haul freight, agriculture, mining etc, heavy construction) or dispersed suburban consumer/retail environment on natural gas vehicles. Sure there are small-scale exceptions but we have seen over and over that the problem is our large scale. Monte understands that and has continually lectures newbies like yourself on this issue, but apparently to no avail.

Ah yes, the Cult of Monte strikes again. Monte also "understands", for example, that steel "cannot" be made without fossil fuels, which is not true but he continues to cling to his Scripture. Of course no nation has run modern industrial infrastructure on natural gas, because there was no need to before now. Just because something like that hasn't been done before, doesn't mean it can't be done.

[shortonsense]

I have no interest in your psychoanalysis.

Ad homs /expletives deleted

On topic, the flood of natural gas has already short circuited the basic premise of the Olduvai Cliff in 2008 and "High Noon For Natural Gas", you are now just mad because you know it'll be a solid decade or business cycle before anyone will risk being laughed at ( again ) to pull the trigger on some more "running out of natural gas" hysteria.

Maddog has already referenced sitting on wells because of the glut caused by the readily available shale gas, go look at the Louisiana website and check out their map on completed and producing Haynesville wells versus the uncompleted and sitting around waiting ones ( just like Maddog has described ).

[shortonsense]

Ah yes, the Cult of Monte strikes again. Monte also "understands", for example, that steel "cannot" be made without fossil fuels, which is not true but he continues to cling to his Scripture.

My favorite was his "no one will produce heavy oil because of poor EROEI" speech before he was informed that undoubtedly California will be irritated at the idea of putting all those billions of barrels BACK because Monte said it wasn't supposed to be happening.

[Gerben]

This is a rather funny discussion. People claiming that large scale conversion to CNG is impossible. It is already done in Pakistan and Iran. Countries with less capabilities than the US.

[Outcast_Searcher]

As it happens, I saw an Oil Drum article referenced on the main page of this site just posted today if memory serves, which points out how easy and relatively inexpensive gasoline to NG conversions are to do - TODAY - to the current fleet of cars (which I hadn't realized) if it weren't for the stupid and horrendous EPA annual fees.
Apparently this is already being done in lots of places, and is no big deal.

The article also points out that depening on your assumptions, just using NG available in the US, replacing ALL the gasoline used in cars in the US will allow NG to last for roughly 20 to 50 years.

Given how much NG we're finding, and the fact that global supplies are huge - these numbers are likely conservative, if push comes to shove.

So, I guess we don't need to even have this conversation (pardon my ignorance), except for the theory that doing this will bankrupt us. Given how cheap this clearly is -- I'll leave it to PSTARR to prove "how impossible it is economically" for the doomers. IMO, a real cost of one to three thousand bucks per car, plus the modest overhead to allow/support the NG infrastructure build-out to allow access to a cheaper fuel makes that point moot.

So the main issue left is getting the infrastructure built out to have NG reliably available at gas stations. If the economic incentive is there, and congress will keep the EPA under control - I'm confident it can be built out within a year or two as the demand rises - when this happens depends on how quickly the sustained average cost of gasoline rises beyond say, 5 or 6 bucks, IMO. (Since in America, we don't change (on a broad scale) until reality prods us rather firmly, thus waking us up).


http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5615

[Gerben]

5 - 6 bucks a gallon will happen when this crisis turns Argentina style. Argentina is not by coincidence also one of the leading CNG nations.

[outcast]

5 - 6 bucks a gallon

That would only happen if the dollar self destructs, otherwise it would be senseless. According to that, less demand + more supply = higher prices, which is BOGUS.

[Tanada]

5 - 6 bucks a gallon

That would only happen if the dollar self destructs, otherwise it would be senseless. According to that, less demand + more supply = higher prices, which is BOGUS.

I would be confident in that thought if it were not for the President and the Media now running around saying the recession is over and people should not worry about spending their money on things like brand new vehicles and new first time houses. The world economy to a large extent and the USA economy to an even larger extent are consumption driven. If a bunch of average Joe the Plumber types go out and buy something demand will go back up, then the rest of the economy will respond and before you know it we will be back against the supply constraint wall for Petroleum.

[copious.abundance]

I can't believe I missed this thread until now.

And now that I've seen it, it has to be among the stupidest threads posted here in a while.

Perhaps all these natural gas discoveries are getting on pstarr's nerves and, true to his nature, he needs to go into denial about it and tell us how it will "never pan out."

Perhaps pstarr needs to be reminded that 15% of vehicles in Argentina run on natural gas. Then there's this little factoid which I posted in the now-merged Pakistan thread:

According to this there are 2 million vehicles (all of the 4-wheeled variety, I presume) in Pakistan which run on natural gas, as of December 2008.

According to this (PDF), there are about 8 million total vehicles on the road in Pakistan, as of 2008. 44% of those are 4-wheeled vehicles (motorcycles and scooters being really popular there). So we have about 3.52 million 4-wheeled vehicles on the road in Pakistan.

2 million is about 56% of 3.52 million. Even if we include all those scooters, 25% of all vehicles on the road in Pakistan run on natural gas.

Gosh golly - I thought there was no substitute for oil!

Or maybe pstarr just needs to join in on the natural gas vehicles thread.

Nice pic here: Filling up at the (natural gas) pump.

[copious.abundance]

Experience tells us otherwise. Vast reserves do not correlate with wealth or an industrial infrastructure. Russia, Iran, and Qatar combined have 10X US reserves. Even Nigeria has as much.

Vast reserves of oil also do not correlate with wealth or industrial infrastructure. Your own example of Nigeria is case in point.

This is because natural gas is not liquid petroleum and never will be. Schemes to export and control this wealth are doomed to fail because of a simple physical fact. Like information on the internet. . . gas wants to be free. Just as the hydrogen economy is a figment of the techtopian imagination so to is a natural gas substitute. Petroleum is a liquid and benefits from that property--it sinks to the ground and stays in place, yet flows by itself without much resistance. You can not say the same about coal or natural gas.

Same with coal:


Not that we need to import any of the stuff anyway.

Gas will always have niche applications--heating electricity generation etc.--but it will never power our industrial infrastructure or our suburban ghettos. It is too fixed to the pipeline. There is no inexpensive convenient method to deliver it out to the tractors and heavy machinery that extract our wealth from the earth. Nor is there a way to fuel our auto and truck fleet. It costs too much to deliver and compress.

It is a gas and wants to be free.

Then how does this natural gas get here???

God this thread is so dumb it isn't funny!

[copious.abundance]

Here ya go pstarr, a big huge Freightliner that runs on natural gas! Already in production!

Big trucks, and everything! All powered by natural gas!

>>> LINKY <<<

Freightliner M2 Rollout Begins with CWI ISL G Natural Gas Engine
June 12, 2009
Canada, Vancouver BC

Daimler anticipates entire natural gas offering will be available by end 2010

First announced in October 2008, Daimler Trucks North America has now commenced its rollout of the Freightliner Business Class® M2 112 truck with the Cummins Westport Inc. (CWI) ISL G natural gas engine. According to CWI, the truck will be offered in a total of six LNG and CNG tractor/truck configurations. The rollout began with a liquified natural gas (LNG) tractor for port and regional haul applications. The Cummins Westport ISL G, an 8.9 litre stoichiometric cooled-exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) engine, meets 2010 EPA emissions today, reduces greenhouse gas emissions and offers top-level performance and efficiency.

[...]

[shortonsense]

God this thread is so dumb it isn't funny!

Showing pictures of actual infrastructure, actual investments, actual solutions is not dumb. Just think of yourself plodding through reality, dragging Peakers kicking and screaming behind you, one molecule of CH4 at a time. They are going to be saved whether they like it or not, myself, I'm all for shipping them off to St Matthew Island with tons of microwave popcorn and processed food, and one AK-47 per person and all the ammo they can carry.

Let them be happy I say, and exponentially procreate all they'd like. Those smart enough to build a boat out of woven grass fibers to escape will have shown themselves smarter than reindeer and worthy of reincorporation into humandom, and maybe learned something along the way.

The rest can do more than fantasize about the end of the world, in exactly the sort of way they seem quite enthusiastic about.

[copious.abundance]

LNG represent 5% of the international natural gas trade and is not predicted to grow enough to counter oil depletion . . .

>>> WHO CARES??? <<<

[copious.abundance]

what does your personal opinion have to do with simple physics? I merely explained the underlying reason why natural gas is not the primary energy source. It is not easily contained. Do you have evidence contrary.

It is your personal opinion that an energy source needs to be "contained" in order to be useful. I have shown you pictures and articles about natural gas cars, trucks, and filling stations. These are all the same things which you believe can only be fueled by oil. This proves you wrong that an energy source needs to be "contained" in order to be useful.

You are comparing apples and oranges, grown-up automobiles to moped, and the premier industrial society with little 2nd World countries. These places have not developed infrastructures almost entirely dependent on long haul freight, distant commutes, and dispersed living arrangement. These countries use low pressure short hauls conversions. It would be very costly (most likely prohibitive) to convert a sizable number of American automobiles for our uniqure transport environment High-pressure gas tanks (necessary for 200 mile range ) are expensive, bulky and dangerous, the high-compression pump to convert from municipal pressure are $100,000 and out of reach for many gas stations, much less domestic home use.

I was very clear in my introductory post. It is quite evident that neither you oily or you short (onbrains) have the ability to understand how these are solutions in isolation, and theoretical in a different environment.

Furthermore you Oily are avoiding the big truth--all you Bakken, Chesapeak and other tightly held natural gas deposits have yet to prove themselves in the long haul, and in fact have yet to make more than an insignificant burp up. Need I remind you of this again?

Dingbat, the Bakken is mostly an oil source, not a natural gas source. Of course you know that, so once again you have lied.

But hey, since you like charts, perhaps I can show you this chart again:



Argentina is a borderline developed nation. But if poorer nations like Argentina and Brazil and Pakistan can drum up the money to power large % of their vehicles with natural gas, so can the US.

You cannot win this argument. Too much of what you claim cannot work already does. And too much of what you say cannot be produced already is.

[copious.abundance]

I don't enjoy wasting my time with a person who intentionally confused bulk with efficiency, and energy content with size. Your pretty images display a profound ignorance repeated in each of your posts. Reserves, no matter how large, do not equal increased production.

In this case, they do. Maybe if I show this chart a dozen more times it will eventually sink in.

All the fractured shale formations, degraded petroleum bitumen fields, and dispersed natural gas resevoirs will not make up for declining petroleum fields WHY?

Because of a simple notion: look at those pretty pictures, really closely. What do they have in common? The ships are huge, slow, and require profound amount of petroleum to move. Whereas free-flowing, light grades of oil move usually under their own pressure from megafields, through virtually frictionless pipelines into refineries. . . . all these oil-replacements need constant energy inputs (in the form of shovels, loaders, freight trains, compressors, coolers, etc.
just to get them onto the ships. That is only the first energy-wasting step to use these thing . . .

This is really starting to get funny. I don't suppose pstarr was aware that his "it wants to be free" natural gas is even *more* frictionless in pipelines than is oil!

And how do you think oil gets from Saudi Arabia to some depot near Houston? Do they beam it over? Or maybe he's never seen an oil tanker!

[copious.abundance]

. . . *blah blah blah* . .. as long as you continue to conflate reserves of any kind with production than these arguments are pointless . . . *more blah blah blah* . . .

And - news just out today - there's more on the way!

(Why, I have no idea, the market is glutted)

>>> LINK <<<

Chesapeake sees sharp Haynesville output hike
By OGJ editors

HOUSTON, Aug. 3 – Chesapeake Energy Corp. expects to hike its Haynesville shale gas output to a gross operated 575 MMcfe/d at the end of 2009 and as much as 1.025 bcfe/d by the end of 2010.

The production rate in late July was 175 MMcfe/d net and 285 MMcfe/d gross operated.

The company plans to average 33 operated rigs in the second half of 2009 and 36 rigs in 2010 compared with 29 currently active.

Chesapeake has added 40,000 net acres since Mar. 31, 2009, and is now the play’s largest leasehold owner at 510,000 net acres. Plains Exploration & Production Co., Houston, Chesapeake’s 20% joint venture partner, owns another 113,000 net acres.

[...]

[copious.abundance]

Incidentally . . .

Furthermore you Oily are avoiding the big truth--all you Bakken, Chesapeak and other tightly held natural gas deposits have yet to prove themselves in the long haul, and in fact have yet to make more than an insignificant burp up. Need I remind you of this again?

Speaking of needing to be reminded of something, pstarr needs to be reminded that these shale gas deposits now comprise almost half of US natural gas production. Heck, even The Oil Drum seems to have thrown in the towel on the issue. I wouldn't call nearly half of (rising) US production an insignifcant burp. Nor would I call a ~10% increase in production since 2005 an insignificant increase.