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: THE Natural Gas Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Thu 01 Feb 2018, 11:02:40

The NASA report says they can determine that the methane in the atmosphere comes from different sources because it has different isotopic characteristics. In particular, they can determine how much atmospheric methane comes from fossil fuels. Thats three different ideas so far---do you have them all in your mind. If so, lets go for the conclusion:


That is incorrect. They cannot measure directly how much is due to the various sources it requires them to run models which they do based on their measured CH4 isotopic mix and the notion they have that biotic mass burning has decreased. You have this mistaken impression they can tell from a CH4 sample how much came from the various sources without any sort of models, not the case at all.
The authors themselves point to the differing results from top down studies (such as theirs) with bottoms up studies (such as the EIA) conducts

You still don't understand what I've posted,


I quoted you several times as saying that methane levels were spiking due to leakage of methane from wells which is patently incorrect. It was your comment and pretty clear...the word "spiking" is incorrect. But you since tried to change the original argument.

The NASA data isn't based on data from individual wells in separate oilfields---that was in a different paper. Do you get that? OK---let try the next thing.


which is exactly what I said, the EIA measure actual emissions, the top down studies like the one you reference tries to torture them out of the data.

Three times is the charm, they say, and now I've repeated it for you FOUR TIMES! Wow


well maybe if you quit discussing a strawman argument.

My original point was that although you want to claim that the increase in total methane is all to do with increased production of natural gas and leakage of methane. As was shown by two studies I linked to, one which measured bottoms up from shale basins in the US and found methane was decreasing while production was in some cases more than doubling and the other that based on a tops down approach pointed to the fact there has been a decrease globally of CH4 emissions from natural gas since the 1980's. So if total methane has continued to rise but the emission contribution from natural gas has actually decreased over that time period then is is pretty unlikely for natural gas to be the main culprit in global rise of methane and hence not responsible for the increase in temperature as you claimed in your original post. Now if you can demonstrate that CH4 emissions from natural gas have instead increased over time and argue why that is correct and the other papers are wrong (including the EiA) then have at it.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6349
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: THE Natural Gas Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Plantagenet » Thu 01 Feb 2018, 12:30:57

The NASA report says they can determine that the methane in the atmosphere comes from different sources because it has different isotopic characteristics.


That is incorrect.


Yes is it correct. Its absolutely totally 100% correct. Stop being such a dim bulb and face facts.

First you said you couldn't even find the section about the isotopic work in the NASA paper I linked concerning NASA's isotopic work on atmospheric methane. That was pretty silly since it was the main part of the report. OK---so you can't read very well. Lots of people can't read very well. So I copied it and pasted it and highlighted in bold for you the parts that were relevant to the use of isotopic characteristics of methane. Its not a very complicated idea, really. The fact that there are distinctive isotopic characteristics that indicate the provenance of CH4 derived from fossil fuel sources has been known for decades.

Obviously, if you can't understand this simple idea, then you won't understand the rest of the report, and you won't understand what it means.

And lo, so it has come to pass.

Image
Methane in the atmosphere derived from different sources has different isotopic characteristics that allow the determination of its provenance. Thats not such a hard idea to understand, it it? See the big red oval in the center of diagram labeled "natural gas?" Thats where the portion of methane in the atmosphere derived from natural gas plots when atmospheric samples are run through a mass spectrometer. You do know what a mass spectrometer is I hope, because I don't want to explain that to you as well.

Cheers!
"Its a brave new world"
---President Obama, 4/25/16
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 21766
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: THE Natural Gas Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Thu 01 Feb 2018, 17:45:27

OK---so you can't read very well. Lots of people can't read very well. So I copied it and pasted it and highlighted in bold for you the parts that were relevant to the use of isotopic characteristics of methane. Its not a very complicated idea, really. The fact that there are distinctive isotopic characteristics that indicate the provenance of CH4 derived from fossil fuel sources has been known for decades.

Obviously, if you can't understand this simple idea, then you won't understand the rest of the report, and you won't understand what it means.


Read the damned paper which I am now convinced you never did but instead probably got your information from a news release (as is your normal modus operandi)

Worden, J. R. et al, Reduced biomass burning emissions reconcile conflicting estimates of the post-2006 atmospheric methane budget. Nature communications. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-017-02246-0

Here is what actually the paper is about (versus what you are trying to characterize).They got all of their estimates of fossil fuel contributions from the paper I previously quoted (Schwietzke, S et al, 2016) that is quite obvious from their Table 1. They did not measure it themselves, in fact the entire paper deals specifically with looking at a decrease in biomass area burned and then figuring out how that impacts the CH4 mass balance based on previous estimates. Simply put because they assess that biomass burning has contributed less then the other sources (e.g. fossil fuels) must take up the slack. That is all they did. It isn’t a paper where they went out and measured isotopes trying to ascertain how much fossil fuels contributed, indeed what they did was to back out biomass burning CH4 using the following methodology:

As discussed in the following sections, we first quantify monthly CO fluxes and their uncertainties at monthly timescales on a 5 × 4° (longitude × latitude) grid using measurements of CO concentrations from the Terra Measurements of Pollution in the Troposphere (MOPITT) satellite instrument (V6J multi-spectral product40 and the adjoint version of GEOS-Chem31). CO fluxes are then re-partitioned to the CO emission types plus uncertainties on each 5 × 4° grid cell using a Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo approach25,41 that accounts for the a priori and a posteriori uncertainties of the BB emissions and other CO emissions. Estimates of the CH4 emissions and their uncertainties are then calculated by multiplying BB CO emissions by the GFED-based estimate of each fire-type contribution, the expected CH4/CO emission factors for all fire types within each grid cell, and the uncertainties of the GFED-recommended emission factors. The emission factor uncertainties are tested with CH4 and CO measurements from the Aura TES instrument


And if you go to the source of their data on fossil fuel contribution to CH4 (which I previously gave the reference to).

Schwietzke, S, et al, 2016. Upward revision of global fossil fuel methane emissions based on isotope database. Nature. 538, pp 88-91

They talk about how they arrived at their data (hint no measurements were made).

The sample sizes of δ13Csource values used in published global CH4 budgets are either small (N < 100, based on cited original measurements) or unknown, uncertainties are rarely applied, and global representativeness is lacking (especially in the tropics and the Southern Hemisphere), but some δ13Csource values have nevertheless taken on canonical status with few references to primary sources (for example, refs 3, 4, 9 and 10; see full list of references in Supplementary Information section 8). We have compiled the most comprehensive δ13Csource database to date (see ref. 14 and Supplementary Information sections 3–5 for complete list of data, metadata and references) including 9,468 δ13CFF, δ13Cmic and δ13CBB original measurements from the peer-reviewed literature and other publicly available sources to define globally weighted average δ13CFF (time-dependent), δ13Cmic, and δ13CBB with well defined uncertainties. These data allowed us to revisit the source attribution of global CH4 emissions since the 1980s by applying an atmospheric box-model to global atmospheric CH4 and δ13Catm measurements (and avoiding the use of a priori FFtot and microbial source strengths), thus maximizing the CH4 and δ13Catm constraints.


And the manner by which they used this data that was compiled from literature was:

Our box-model applies Monte Carlo techniques to estimate global FFtot and microbial CH4 emissions and uncertainties as a function of δ13Csource, of isotope fractionation during oxidation (OH + CH4), of the uncertainties of both of these values, and of other factors (see Supplementary Table 1). We also estimated FFind emissions by subtracting FFgeo emissions from FFtot emissions. This allowed us to calculate global long-term trends in the Fugitive Emission Rate (FER), which is the fraction of natural gas production lost to the atmosphere through its lifecycle (production, processing, transport and use), and is a critical parameter for evaluating the climatic impact of natural gas as a fuel


given you never read any of this prior to pontificating about the measurement of CH4 isotopes let me summarize:

The NASA paper never measured CH4 for any reason other than determining biomass burning amounts through time. They did not directly measure fossil fuel originated CH4. They got all of that information from a previous paper and those authors got their information from a literature search and compilation (with no quality control, ie. assumed all values were equally relevant). The numbers that Worden et al (NASA) used were based on the box model analysis conducted by Schwietke et al. And the final numbers that Worden et al end up with regarding contribution of fossil fuels to current CH4 mass balance was arrived at through their own box model that took into account the lesser amount of biomass burning in the mix of what constitutes total CH4.

Please before you go off on pedantic rants it would help if you actually read the papers you refer to.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6349
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: THE Natural Gas Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Plantagenet » Thu 01 Feb 2018, 18:13:23

(hint no measurements were made).....


Is that so? Do you want to bet on that? :lol: :roll:

We have compiled the most comprehensive δ13Csource database to date (see ref. 14 and Supplementary Information sections 3–5 for complete list of data, metadata and references) including 9,468 δ13CFF, δ13Cmic and δ13CBB original measurements from the peer-reviewed literature and other publicly available sources to define globally weighted average δ13CFF (time-dependent), δ13Cmic, and δ13CBB with well defined uncertainties.


If no measurements were made, then why does their data table contain 9,468 measurements?

Don't you understand that the authors based their paper on the data from the 9,468 measurements in their data tables? Do you get it now?

No, of course you don't get it.

-----------------------------------

Look-----my guess is you've got some kind of medical problem. You read things and you even quote them in your posts, but you either don't comprehend what you just read or you can't remember what you just read for more than a few seconds.

The result of this is that you continually post utter nonsense, like your claim here that there were no measurements, while you simultaneously quoted the exact part of the paper saying their work is based on 9,468 measurements.

Once again, you clearly didn't understand what you just read. You didn't comprehend at all even the passage you copied and quoted where it clearly discusses thousands of measurements. You say you read the paper, but apparently you can't remember the data tables where the data from these thousands of measurements are all listed.

My suggestion is that you should get a checkup. In my humble opinion your clear inability to comprehend or remember simple things you've just read should be a matter of concern to you.

Cheers! :)
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 21766
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: THE Natural Gas Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Thu 01 Feb 2018, 19:53:24

If no measurements were made, then why does their data table contain 9,468 measurements?


As it says in the paper they got that information from peer-reviewed literature and other publicly available sources. They made no measurement of isotopes themselves (which is what I pointed out but apparently your reading comprehension is nearly zero). Read what was said.

including 9,468 δ13CFF, δ13Cmic and δ13CBB original measurements from the peer-reviewed literature and other publicly available sources
Does that say they made those measurements? If you think so then you are an even bigger idiot than you appear to be.

The result of this is that you continually post utter nonsense, like your claim here that there were no measurements, while you simultaneously quoted the exact part of the paper saying their work is based on 9,468 measurements.


Your attempt to twist what I said is at best infantile. As I stated above Worden et al got all of their measurements on fossil fuel methane from Schwietke et al. Schwietke et al got all of their fossil fuel methane data from the literature. Neither paper actually measured any isotope data regarding fossil fuel components of methane. ONce again read what I wrote and read the frigging paper you moron.

Once again, you clearly didn't understand what you just read. You didn't comprehend at all even the passage you copied and quoted where it clearly discusses thousands of measurements. You say you read the paper, but apparently you can't remember the data tables where the data from these thousands of measurements are all listed.


Look dipshit here is what I said

They got all of their estimates of fossil fuel contributions from the paper I previously quoted (Schwietzke, S et al, 2016) that is quite obvious from their Table 1. They did not measure it themselves,


and

The NASA paper never measured CH4 for any reason other than determining biomass burning amounts through time. They did not directly measure fossil fuel originated CH4. They got all of that information from a previous paper and those authors got their information from a literature search and compilation (with no quality control, ie. assumed all values were equally relevant)


Now if you can show how what I actually said is incorrect rather than try to show how what I didn't say was incorrect then fine. Otherwise I suggest you quit digging yourself deeper into the "looking stupid" hole.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6349
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: THE Natural Gas Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Plantagenet » Thu 01 Feb 2018, 21:44:33

.... idiot ...moron.....stupid....


You're the one claiming a paper based on data tables containing page after page of data based on 9,458 measurements of atmospheric chemistry has "no measurements" in it. :lol: :roll: :-D

Cheers!

PS: When I say your reading comprehension is so poor that you don't understand what you are reading, I'm not saying you are stupid or so poorly educated that you are incapable of understanding the scientific literature. I know you have a M.Sc. degree and worked for many years as a professional in the oil biz. I'm just pointing out that your posts don't make any sense ---- probably because you can't remember what you just read. And then when this is pointed out to you you throw a childish fit. Wow.

Look at this most recent exchange...you claim a paper based on thousands of measurements of atmospheric chemistry has "no measurements" in it, and then act out like a little child having a tantrum and calling people names when your little mistake is pointed out to you.

Try to get a grip. You made a little mistake---its not the end of the world.

Image
Waaaah! Waaaah! There are no measurements in the paper!!! Ignore the 9458 measurements in the data tables! Waaah! I say there are NO MEASUREMENTS!!!!

Cheers! :lol: :) :-D :roll: :razz:
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 21766
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: THE Natural Gas Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Thu 01 Feb 2018, 21:59:31

You're the one claiming a paper based on data tables containing page after page of data based on 9,458 measurements of atmospheric chemistry has "no measurements" in it.


you just made that up. If you quoted me correctly (and I just showed the quotes above) you could not make this claim. Is there something frigging the matter with your brain?

Once again what I actually said:

They got all of their estimates of fossil fuel contributions from the paper I previously quoted (Schwietzke, S et al, 2016) that is quite obvious from their Table 1. They did not measure it themselves,


The NASA paper never measured CH4 for any reason other than determining biomass burning amounts through time. They did not directly measure fossil fuel originated CH4. They got all of that information from a previous paper and those authors got their information from a literature search and compilation (with no quality control, ie. assumed all values were equally relevant
)


Please show us all where I actually said the paper had no measurements in it, what I said was those measurements came from the literature. Now please show us all where my claims are wrong. If not why not just shut the hell up.

This sort of behavior is childish at best and reprehensible at it's worst. If you can't quote people properly then you should not be here. I doubt very much the moderators look favorably on your actions. If you think this sort of behavior will cause people to engage with you I suspect you have another think coming.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6349
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: THE Natural Gas Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby GoghGoner » Tue 06 Feb 2018, 06:36:57

CHK shares are heading down below $3 again. RRC really looks ugly, too. This after a year of higher ng prices but obviously not high enough. Producing unprofitable wells isn't a long term strategy? Who would have thought...

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-chesapeake-energy-corporation-apos-181100258.html

Chesapeake Energy had hoped to strengthen its financial situation so that it could return to growth mode last year. However, it ran into an unexpected headwind from Hurricane Harvey, which caused production to fall 15% in the third quarter. Additional headwinds appear set to hold it back again this year -- it anticipates that output to be flat to modestly higher, which was well below the 7% growth that analysts expected. That tepid outlook is another reason why the company no longer needs as many employees and shows how far it remains behind the competition, many of whom can deliver high-octane growth in the current environment.
GoghGoner
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1754
Joined: Thu 10 Apr 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Stilłwater subdivision

Re: THE Natural Gas Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby GoghGoner » Wed 14 Feb 2018, 10:12:27

More haircuts because, hey, this stuff was never profitable. Rex Energy is also filing soon.

McClendon-founded Ascent Resources Marcellus files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy

Ascent Resources Marcellus Holdings LLC, a shale driller founded by the late U.S. fracking pioneer Aubrey McClendon, said on Tuesday it had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy as part of a negotiated plan with lenders to reduce about $1 billion of debt and boost liquidity.

Privately held Ascent is one of several energy companies McClendon launched after he was ousted in 2013 during a corporate governance crisis from Chesapeake Energy Corp, which he had founded and built into one of the largest U.S. shale drillers.
GoghGoner
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1754
Joined: Thu 10 Apr 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Stilłwater subdivision

Flare Mining – Turning Waste Natural Gas into an Alternative

Unread postby AdamB » Wed 14 Feb 2018, 11:19:27


Flare Mining’s innovative, flare gas capture and processing systems turn raw associated gas and from a waste into digital currency income. Gas flaring is the combustion of associated gas produced with crude oil or from gas fields. The impact of gas flaring is of local and global concern. Gas flaring is one of the most challenging energy and environmental problems facing the world today whether regionally or globally. It is a multi-billion dollar waste, a local environmental catastrophe and a global energy and environmental problem which has persisted for decades. The option to release gas to the atmosphere by flaring and venting is an essential practice in oil and gas production, primarily for safety reasons. Flaring is the controlled burning of natural gas produced in association with oil in the course of routine oil and gas production operations. Venting is the controlled


Flare Mining – Turning Waste Natural Gas into an Alternative Store of Value
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4301
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: THE Natural Gas Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Wed 14 Feb 2018, 15:50:44

And another fine example of how filing bankruptcy make the INDUSTRY stronger. Apparently it will be the money lenders (banks/bond holders) that take the hit and not the investors or service companies: "...and added that its vendors and service providers would not be impaired by the restructuring...". Just as in the vast majority of Chapter 11 filings. I suppose those interest rate 2 to 3 times higher then that of Treasuries don't look that good right now.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11194
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Natural Gas Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby coffeeguyzz » Wed 14 Feb 2018, 18:28:30

The Ascent referenced in the article is the West Virginia operation with 43,000 acres targeting the Marcellus only. There were a few articles around describing the situation in more detail, but I did not read them.
Backing away from pipeline commitments at these horrifically low prices may be a factor in the BK process.

Supposedly, it has all somewhat been amicably pre-arranged with lenders and the BK process will be complete in about 60 days with minimal interruption.

Rex may become a buyout target.
coffeeguyzz
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 269
Joined: Mon 27 Oct 2014, 15:09:47

Re: Natural gas flaring

Unread postby coffeeguyzz » Wed 14 Feb 2018, 18:37:16

Several innovative, smaller outfits have come up with hardware to capture and liquify onsite gas from unconventional wells.

I have yet to hear of any who have been widely adopted by the industry.
coffeeguyzz
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 269
Joined: Mon 27 Oct 2014, 15:09:47

Re: THE Natural Gas Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby coffeeguyzz » Wed 14 Feb 2018, 18:43:37

December Pennsylvania production report just released.
One well - Chesapeake's McGavin 6 - has now produced 6 1/2 Billion cubic feet first FIVE months online.
The productivity out of the Appalachian Basin will reverberate throughout the global energy markets for decades to come.
coffeeguyzz
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 269
Joined: Mon 27 Oct 2014, 15:09:47

Re: Natural gas flaring

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Thu 15 Feb 2018, 14:22:43

coffeeguyzz wrote:Several innovative, smaller outfits have come up with hardware to capture and liquify onsite gas from unconventional wells.

I have yet to hear of any who have been widely adopted by the industry.

This is an example, of IMO, where regulators need to do their jobs and FORCE oil extractors not to flare the gas -- or pay HUGE fines. And if it adds a small amount to the cost of fossil fuels, SO BE IT. (Not that the vast majority of people who complain about "dirty oil", etc. seem willing to actually PAY the costs associated with cleaning things up.
Which is why lawmakers don't push harder to do so.)
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: 5916
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: Natural gas flaring

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Thu 15 Feb 2018, 17:37:26

Outcast - It's typically not a cost factor but a lack of pipelines available to put the NG in. And the lack of a pipeline is a matter of it not being economic for a NG gathering company to build one. Thus the oil would not be produced. Same true if you put a "huge fine" on the producer which makes developing those reserves uneconomic. Thus the political hurdle: the company loses the possibility of making money but the lease owns and taxing authorities would lose revenue.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11194
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Natural gas flaring

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Mon 19 Feb 2018, 15:43:00

ROCKMAN wrote:Outcast - It's typically not a cost factor but a lack of pipelines available to put the NG in. And the lack of a pipeline is a matter of it not being economic for a NG gathering company to build one. Thus the oil would not be produced. Same true if you put a "huge fine" on the producer which makes developing those reserves uneconomic. Thus the political hurdle: the company loses the possibility of making money but the lease owns and taxing authorities would lose revenue.

Thanks for that.

And I get that. But isn't this semantics? (To me, the requirement to put in a pipeline (or some other viable solution) instead of flaring the gas is PRECISELY: a "cost factor", which would increase the total recovery cost for the oil source.)

The point I was (perhaps incorrectly in some way) trying to make is that regulations forcing such gas not to be flared would force such oil sources NOT to be used until/unless the price were high enough to make it economic AND responsibly handle the NG produced as a side effect of gathering the oil.

And if things like that routinely/consistently had to be done everywhere (globally), then the price of oil would no doubt be higher.

But we don't do that, just like we don't impose the social costs of burning fossil fuels -- because the voters don't want to pay the costs. (They want to talk about "being green", but IF the costs become at all meaningful, the polls move 180 degrees on the willingness to address AGW, pollution, etc).

Whatever the political hurdle or the current political focal point -- the key thing is we do the wrong thing, because it costs powerful entity X (be it producer or consumer or lease holder) too much.
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: 5916
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Russian Arctic natural gas comes to India

Unread postby AdamB » Wed 28 Mar 2018, 20:44:53


It was the first ever shipload of Russian Arctic LNG to India. And more is to come. According to Lev Feodosev, Deputy Chairman of Novatek’s Management Board, the Asian market is considered of major importance for the company’s LNG project in Yamal. «One of our main priorities, which is laid down in the company’s strategy until year 2030, is the geographic expansion of deliveries and enhanced presence in key Asian markets,» he says. «The first delivery of LNG to the growing Indian market is an important first step in this direction». Since Novatek launched production at its Yamal LNG plant, out-shipments of more than one million tons of liquified gas has been made. A total of four brand new and powerful LNG carriers now shuttle to and from the project terminal of Sabetta, and another 11 vessels of the kind are under construction. The ships have powerful


Russian Arctic natural gas comes to India
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4301
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: Natural Gas Developments

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Tue 12 Jun 2018, 11:27:51

Might be part of the solution for the EU escaping Russian NG. From

https://www.rigzone.com/news/wire/afric ... 3-article/

(Bloomberg) -- On a tropical island just off the coast of Nigeria, hundreds of engineers work around the clock to produce liquefied natural gas at a plant the size of Lower Manhattan. Operator Nigeria LNG Ltd. says it will decide later this year whether to invest more than $10 billion to boost capacity by 40 percent. That would allow the Bonny Island terminal -- an hour’s ferry ride from the oil hub of Port Harcourt -- to export as much as 66 million cubic meters (30 million tons) a year to markets in Europe and Asia.

NLNG’s shareholders -- Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Total SA, Eni SpA and state-controlled Nigerian National Petroleum Corp. -- must weigh the benefits of expanding their profitable venture against the threat of higher taxes, pipeline vandalism in the Niger River delta and volatile gas prices. Those concerns have already delayed the project first mooted in 2012. Any further interruptions will increase the risk that Africa’s biggest oil producer misses the global transition to cleaner fuels and a chance to reduce its stuttering economy’s reliance on crude.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11194
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Natural Gas Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby GoghGoner » Sat 25 Aug 2018, 06:37:45

I've noticed a few experts raising alarms about the amount of natural gas going into storage. We have a couple more months of build and supply expectations are high so prices are staying fairly low. Rig counts haven't risen in the shale gas areas the last year and permits in Marcellus were really low the last couple of months so I am wondering about those supply expectations being met. On the demand side, we have hot temps for the next two weeks.

Image

One thing I noticed is that the availability of natural gas is a key to the manufacturing sector. Europe is already is the cross-hairs.

Europe's Unprecedented Natural Gas Rally Drives Up Power
GoghGoner
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1754
Joined: Thu 10 Apr 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Stilłwater subdivision

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests