Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on January 15, 2013 at 8:49am

 

Source: http://greenbuzzdaily.blogspot.com/2013/01/shale-gas-explosion.html

 

Shale Gas Explosion

 

By Keith Kohl | Tuesday, January 15th, 2013

Although we credit Colonel Drake and his Titusville well with the distinction of the birthplace of the U.S. oil industry, the fact is we had been actively drilling for natural gas for more than three decades.

As you know, William Hart's 27-foot natural gas well was drilled in Fredonia, New York, during the 1820s. Now considered the “father of natural gas,” Hart was drilling about 80 miles north of the famous Drake well.

But there's another figure oft forgotten in this story...

It's more likely than not you've never heard of Preston Barmore.

Two years before Drake, Preston was drilling less than a mile away from Hart's gas well.

Even though his well was a little over one hundred feet deep, he decided to drop a small 8 lb. charge of gunpowder down the well to fracture the rock. The explosion marked the first time someone fractured rock in order to increase the flow of gas from the well...

And things haven't been the same for this sector since.

Shale Gas 101

Before running through the various U.S. shale plays, let's be clear as to why we're focusing on shale gas in the first place.

Just how important is shale gas to our overall supply? Well, this should give you a good idea:

 

Breaking down the numbers further, we can pinpoint how critical shale gas is to the overall scene (click table to enlarge):

Above, you can see production from shale gas wells jumped 327% between 2007 and 2011. Meanwhile, output from non-shale gas wells has tapered off by nearly 20%.

There's a good reason U.S. shale plays are being blamed for the current supply glut: It's the only place production is truly growing. And since 2011, output in plays like the Marcellus has doubled to approximately 7 billion cubic feet per day!

Shale Gas Investing

This new supply couldn't have come at a better time.

We keep getting a glimpse of these small shifts toward natural gas, the most prominent being the move of our power plants from coal to natural gas.

But we're talking about more than just electrical generation here...

Sit up and take notice, because more stories are popping up across the media spectrum every day.

Sometimes it's a short article on a company converting its truck fleet over to CNG — which makes perfect sense for companies like UPS. Prices at the pump can be rather painful when you're running a large truck fleet. The national average of $3.91 per gallon of diesel doesn't come close to the $2 per gallon equivalent that CNG can deliver.

UPS isn't the only company converting its vehicles to run on natural gas. AT&T, for example, plans to purchase 8,000 CNG vehicles this year — and their alternative fuel plan is expected to save about 49 million gallons of gasoline over the next decade.

Natural gas-fueled vehicles are certainly becoming more popular in natural gas-rich areas like the Marcellus. Right now, there are a little more than a dozen natural gas filling stations available for Pennsylvania motorists.

And natural gas is even useful for the companies drilling for it! In fact, Encana has been able to cut its fuel costs nearly in half in the Haynesville by using liquefied natural gas to power its drilling rigs.

It looks like railroads are next up on the list... Canadian National Railway is attempting to make the conversion.

“Are planes next?” you ask. Actually, Qatar has already broken into that territory using jet fuel from a gas-to-liquids process, courtesy of Shell.

This is the road we're heading down — and not getting ahead of this transition will be the single biggest regret investors have decades from now.

Until next time,

Keith Kohl
for Energy and Capital

Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on January 15, 2013 at 12:47pm

Source: http://beta.fool.com/analystx/2013/01/14/solving-natural-gas-indust...

 

Solving the Natural Gas Industry Triangle

By Masam Abbas - January 14, 2013 | Tickers: CHK, CVX, CLNE, CMI, XOM, F, GE, GM, PCAR, WPRT | 1 Comment

Masam is a member of The Motley Fool Blog Network -- entries represent the personal opinions of our bloggers and are not formally edited.

Many people often question why natural gas (NG) has not become a popular fueling option in the U.S., despite its favorable economics. The huge gap between gasoline prices and natural gas prices automatically makes natural gas a cheaper alternative. The actual answer lies in the fact that the NG industry has become a victim of the "chicken or egg" issue. Which will come first: NG vehichles, or the fueling stations needed to power them?

A "chicken or egg" issue

Before making any comment on the NG players, we need to understand the NG industry dynamics. Three main groups have an important role to play in this industry: 1) Auto original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), 2) fuel providers, and 3) the final users of the NG-driven vehicles.

The dilemma of "chicken or egg" in this industry tells us that not a single player out of these three is willing to take the first step to bring a change in the industry. The giant fuel providers like Exxon Mobil (NYSE: XOM) and Chevron (NYSE: CVX) have hardly contributed to this industry. They believe that given that the final consumer has hardly embraced NG driven vehicles, investing in NG will not be a profitable venture. On the other hand, the final user is not buying NG driven vehicles due to the lack of NG fueling infrastructure. No one wants to end up in the middle of a highway with an empty fuel. The third group, the auto OEMs, is not taking serious interest in this industry due to a lack of demand from the final user.

Therefore, we need to evaluate the current triangle of these three players in the industry. It is interesting to note that there are a few exceptions to the ‘chicken or egg’ issue.

Clean Energy Fuel (NASDAQ: CLNE): This company has taken a bold step by actively developing the NG fueling infrastructure. The company has received $450 million worth of new investments that it plans to direct towards this project. One of its important lenders is Chesapeake Energy (NYSE: CHK). Tim Boone’s Chesapeake has also shown keen interest in the NG industry. Recently, in collaboration with General Electric (NYSE: GE), the company launched a ‘CNG in a box’ system, which can compress NG from a pipeline into CNG onsite at a traditional filling station.

Coming back to Clean Energy Fuel, the company plans to build 150 NG fueling stations in the U.S. by the end of 2013. The company has already built 70 stations this year (according to the set target) and is well on its way to construct another 80 next year.

Another milestone achieved by the company is its agreement with GE. According to the agreement, CLNE will buy GE's technology that will be used in liquefying natural gas to supply to its filling stations. GE has agreed to lend CLNE $200 million to buy two GE-made plants equipped with the afore-mentioned technology. MicroLNG, the name of the technology, is a small modular system that will help to lower the temperature to -260 degrees Fahrenheit in order to liquefy the gas.  

Clean Energy has strategically placed most of its LNG stations near truck stops of Pilot Flying J, the largest truck-stop operator in North America. In this way, not only will Clean Energy be able to benefit from the existing network of Pilot Flying but will also be able to gain competitive advantage over any other competitor in the long-run.

Westport Innovations (NASDAQ: WPRT): Westport is another NG stock that has not made a single cent of profit since its inception, just like Clean Energy Fuel. However, the future for this company is extremely bright. This company is one of the very engine players that have taken a serious interest in the NG industry. In fact, it is the only engine technology provider that is a pure-play on NG (100% exposure to NG).

Westport has established partnerships with most of the major OEMs operating in the United States. In the light-duty category, the company is working with Ford (NYSE: F) to produce engines for F-series trucks. Recently, Westport also signed an agreement with General Motors (NYSE: GM) to develop advanced engineering technology for engines in the light-duty trucks category. Further, Westport provides natural gas engines to Volvo's V7 wagons. This allows Westport to reach the European market as Volvo has 16% market share in Sweden and 1.5% in Europe.

The company is also increasing its presence in the heavy-duty truck engine market. A joint venture of Westport and Cummins (NYSE: CMI), a US-based truck engine manufacturer, serves the medium and heavy-duty truck market. Also, Westport's 15-L High Pressure Direct Injection (HPDI) engines are sold in North America as Westport-branded LNG option for Kenworth and Peterbilt heavy trucks. Kenworth and Peterbilt are brand names through which Paccar (NASDAQ: PCAR), a US-based truck manufacturer, sells its trucks in the US market.

Westport, through alliance with Weichai Power, one of the major suppliers of natural gas engines in China, has also penetrated the Chinese truck market. According to ACT Research estimates, China is expected to produce 1.3 million trucks in 2013 which is much larger than North America's current production rate of 323,000 trucks per annum.

Foolish Bottom-Line

Both Clean Energy and Westport are poised to benefit from an increased NG adoption rate. With, the NG prices below $3.5 and the recent rally in the WTI Crude oil prices (crossed the $90 barrier), the NG remains a very attractive option for the final users that are waiting for companies like Clean Energy and Westport to provide them with adequate infrastructure and a wide variety of NG vehicles to conveniently switch to NG.

 

Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on January 18, 2013 at 2:57pm

Short‐Term Energy Outlook Supplement: Constraints in New England likely to affect regional energy prices this winter

 

This 12 page report from the DOE-EIA makes some interesting comments and contains some interesting figures and maps that might be of interest to friends of the Marcellus.

 

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/special/pdf/2013_sp_01.pdf?scr=email

 

 

Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on January 20, 2013 at 4:13pm

Fracking for natural gas being powered by it, too

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/fracking-natural-gas-being-powered-170628804....

Natural gas that's unlocked by hydraulic fracturing is now being used to power the process

By Marc Levy, Associated Press | Associated Press – 7 hrs ago

In this photo made on Thursday, Jan. 17, 2013, technician Sean Cline finishes up the conversion of a 50 litre, 16 cylinder, Cummins diesel engine with four turbo-chargers that has been converted to run on a blend of diesel and natural gas at the Cummins Bridgeway facility in Gibsonia, Pa. Oil- and gas-field companies from Pennsylvania to Texas are experimenting with converting the huge diesel engines that operate pumps that propel millions of gallons of water, sand and chemicals down a well bore in the fracturing process to break apart rock or tight sands that trap natural gas. (AP Photo/Keith Srakocic)

 

   HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) -- Advances in hydraulic fracturing technology have powered the American natural gas boom. And now hydraulic fracturing could be increasingly powered by the very fuel it has been so successful in coaxing up from the depths.

Oil- and gas-field companies from Pennsylvania to Texas are experimenting with converting the huge diesel pump engines that propel millions of gallons of water, sand and chemicals thousands of feet down well bores to break apart rock or tight sands and release the natural gas trapped inside.

It's the latest way for drillers to become consumers of the product that they are making broadly available in large amounts — and extremely cheap. Production has increased so much that natural gas has flooded the market, dragging down prices and forcing companies to pull back on their plans to expand drilling while looking for new ways to use gas.

After the conversion, the engines will run on cheaper natural gas, or a blend of diesel and natural gas. That brings down costs and, theoretically, cuts down the sooty exhaust that comes from burning diesel.

"You're going to see this spreading quite rapidly across the industry," said Douglas E. Kuntz, president and CEO of Pennsylvania General Energy Co., based in tiny Warren, Pa. "As the technology evolves, you'll see more companies across the country doing more natural gas fueling of this equipment."

A number of increasingly cost-conscious oil- and gas-field companies are already using natural gas to run trucks and drilling rigs. But what makes the conversion of the hydraulic fracturing pump engines to natural gas particularly challenging is the sheer number of engines running at once, and the amount of horsepower necessary to power the pumps.

PGE and contractor Universal Well Services, of Meadville, Pa., are converting a 16-engine pumping unit called a "frack spread" so that the engines will accept a blend of 70 percent natural gas and 30 percent diesel. It should be complete by May and is estimated to cost less than a quarter of what it would if it was powered by diesel alone.

 

Houston-based Apache Corp., one of the nation's largest independent oil and gas exploration companies, has worked with Halliburton Co., Schlumberger Ltd. and Caterpillar Inc. to develop similar technology.

A 12-engine unit — the first full frack spread that is operating in the field, according to Apache — just completed two Granite Wash wells near Elk City, Okla. Another unit is in the process of being completed.

"Today we've said, 'we've seen enough testing.' We've decided this is how we want to frack with all of our fleets and we're going to start with two permanent conversions," said Mike Bahorich, Apache's executive vice president and chief technology officer.

PGE will be able to use field gas, drawn from pipelines that connect to its nearby Marcellus Shale wells in north-central Pennsylvania, and save trips by fuel-hauling trucks. For now at least, Apache will have to truck in compressed natural gas or liquefied natural gas to run its new frack spreads, but it hopes to start using the cheaper field gas in the future, Bahorich said.

It also may provide a way for drilling companies to improve their image on environmental issues after sustaining criticism for air quality problems around gas wells and the practice of lacing hydraulic fracturing fluids with chemicals.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency calls reducing pollution from diesel engines one of the county's most important air quality challenges. Diesel engines can produce large quantities of smog-forming nitrogen oxides and soot, which can cause lung and heart problems. Soot also plays a significant role in climate change, researchers say.

Saving the truck trips will improve air quality, but the size of the benefit from replacing diesel engines with natural gas is less clear, according to environmental advocates.

That's because new diesel engines are subject to strict environmental standards and natural gas-powered engines give off only slightly less pollution, said Joe Osborne, legal director of the Pittsburgh-based Group Against Smog and Pollution.

Regardless, the economic benefit appears enormous for an industry that used more than 700 million gallons of diesel domestically in hydraulic fracturing last year, according to Apache estimates.

The cost to convert the engines is far less than the roughly $3.5 million per frack spread that Apache can save if it completes 140 planned wells in a year with the two units, Bahorich said.

For PGE and Universal, the cost of conversion and engineering will be several million dollars, said Roger Willis, Universal's president. After that, the fuel price savings are eye-popping: A gallon of diesel fuel costs about $3.60, while equivalent amount of the natural gas blend replacement currently costs about 47 cents, Kuntz said.

PGE, which plans to drill 35 to 40 new Marcellus Shale wells in 2013 all with the natural gas-powered frack spread, expects to save 750,000 gallons of diesel a year, or 55 percent of the diesel in its fracking operations.

 

"Keeping this frack spread busy over the course of a year, you'll be on the positive side in less than a year," Kuntz said.

Permalink Reply by craig on January 20, 2013 at 7:04pm

Ahh, a new thorn in the side of the anti's... I love it !

Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on January 22, 2013 at 9:23am

OBAMA LETS CHINESE OWN U.S. ENERGY RESOURCES

Beijing acquiring major ownership in oil, natural gas across nation

Published: 16 hours ago

by JEROME R. CORSI Email | Archive

Jerome R. Corsi, a Harvard Ph.D., is a WND senior staff reporter. He has authored many books, including No. 1 N.Y. Times best-sellers "The Obama Nation" and "Unfit for Command." Corsi's latest book is "Where's the REAL Birth Certificate?"

NEW YORK – The Obama administration is quietly allowing China to acquire major ownership interests in oil and natural gas resources across the U.S.

The decision to allow China to compete for U.S. oil and natural gas resources appears to stem from a need to keep Beijing economically interested in lending to the U.S. The Obama administration has run $1-trillion-plus annual federal budget deficits since taking office that likely will continue in the second term.

Allowing China to have equity interests in U.S. energy production is a reversal of the Bush administration’s policy. In 2005, the Bush administration blocked China on grounds of national security from an $18.4 billion deal to purchase California-based Unocal Corp.

As WND reported Monday, Beijing has been developing a proposal in which real estate on American soil owned by China would be set up as “development zones” to establish Chinese-owned businesses and bring in its citizens to the U.S. to work.

China leased first oil rights in Texas

China’s first major move into the U.S. oil and natural gas market can be traced to October 2009, when the state-owned Chinese energy giant CNOOC bought a multi-million dollar stake in 600,000 acres of South Texas oil and gas fields.

Jerome Corsi exposes the globalists’ plan to put America on the cho...

Reporting the story, Monica Hatcher of the Houston Chronicle suggested China was “testing the political waters for further energy expansion into U.S. energy reserves.”

China’s purchase of U.S. oil and natural gas rights will strike millions of Americans as paradoxical, since the U.S. continues to be a net importer of approximately 60 percent of the oil consumed in the U.S.

The Chronicle reported China paid $2.2 billion for a one-third stake in Chesapeake Energy assets, with CNOCC laying a claim to a share of energy resources in South Texas that could produce up to half a million barrels of oil per day.

The Houston paper reported that as part of the deal, CNOCC agreed to pay approximately $1.1 billion for a share of Chesapeake’s assets in the Eagle Ford, a broad oil and gas formation that runs southwest of San Antonio to the Mexican border.

The Chronicle also reported that the deal with China could create as many as 20,000 jobs in the U.S. and provide the capital Chesapeake needs to increase its rig count in South Texas from 10 to 42 by the end of 2012.

China’s oil interests

Along with CNOOC, which is 100-percent owned by the communist Chinese government, Sinopec Group also is purchasing energy interests in the U.S.

Sinopec Group is the largest shareholder of Sinopac Corporation, a state-owned investment company incorporated in 1998 largely to acquire and operate oil and natural gas interests worldwide.

The Wall Street Journal recently compileda state-by-state list of the $17 billion in oil and natural gas equity interests CNOOC and Sinopec have acquired in the U.S. and Canada since 2010.

• Colorado: CNOOC gained a one-third stake in 800,000 acres in northeast Colorado and southwest Wyoming in a $1.27 billion pact with Chesapeake Energy Corporation.
• Louisiana: Sinopec has a one-third interest in 265,000 acres in the Tuscaloosa Marine Shale after a broader $2.5 billion deal with Devon Energy.
• Michigan: Sinopec gained a one-third interest in 350,000 acres in a larger $2.5 billion deal with Devon Energy.
• Ohio: Sinopec acquired a one-third interest in Devon Energy’s 235,000 Utica Shale acres in a larger $2.5 billion deal.
• Oklahoma: Sinopec has a one-third interest in 215,000 acres in a broader $2.5 billion deal with Devon Energy.
• Texas: CNOOC acquired a one-third interest in Chesapeake Energy’s 600,000 acres in the Eagle Ford Shale in a $2.16-billion deal.
• Wyoming: CNOOC has a one-third stake in northeast Colorado and southeast Wyoming after a $1.27 billion pact with Chesapeake Energy. Sinopec gained a one-third interest in Devon Energy’s 320,000 acres as part of a larger $2.5 billion deal.

The Wall Street Journal reported China’s strategy – implemented since 2010 by Fu Chengyu, who has served as chairman of both CNOOC and Sniopec – is to “seek minority stakes, play a passive role, and, in a nod to U.S. regulators, keep Chinese personnel at arm’s length from advanced U.S. technology.”

China moving into Gulf of Mexico

After a difficult political struggle, China received permission last month from the Canadian government to make its largest overseas acquisition of oil and natural gas interests outside China, acquiring Canadian energy producer Nexen Inc. for $15.5 billion. In the process, China acquired Nexen oil and natural gas operations in the Gulf of Mexico in U.S. waters.

Although the deal still requires approval from CIFUS, the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment, the acquisition of Nexen’s high-tech ultra-deepwater drilling resou.... CNOOC, a company that derives nearly all its domestic capacity from shallow waters, has announced a goal of producing 1 million barrels of oil per day from ultra-deepwater oil and natural gas facilities by 2020, more than doubling current capacity.

In 2010, China passed the U.S. to become the world’s largest energy consumer, according to the International Energy Agency. China consumed 2.252 billion tons of oil equivalent in 2009, approximately 4 percent more than the U.S.

 

 

Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on January 23, 2013 at 6:37am

Source: http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/18/opinion/la-oe-gatto-califor...

 

Lowering emissions, raising red flags

Op-Ed

The Low Carbon Fuel Standard was intended to reduce California carbon emissions, but it may come with some terrible unintended consequences.

January 18, 2013|By Mike Gatto

    The Low Carbon Fuel Standard, a regulatory program established under Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, was intended to reduce California carbon emissions, but it may come with unintended consequences.

The Low Carbon Fuel Standard, a regulatory program established under Gov.… (Frederic J. Brown / AFP /…)

We've all seen the movie: Some small, seemingly unrelated actions lead to dire and unintended consequences. It happens in real life too, especially in government. The Low Carbon Fuel Standard, a regulatory program established under Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, was intended to reduce California carbon emissions, but it may come with some terrible unintended consequences.

The concept underpinning the standard is that most Californians would pay a little more at the pump if that guaranteed cleaner air. But what if the program also unwittingly supported the economy in places like Iraq, promoted clear-cutting of the Amazon rain forest, increased hunger in nations such as Haiti and Guatemala, and eliminated jobs in California? These are some of the unintended consequences if we don't change how the standard is implemented. The program, which took effect in 2011, requires a 10% reduction in "carbon intensity" in our fuel, taking into account emissions during the process, including extraction, refining, transportation and consumer use. The California Air Resources Board, charged with implementing the standard, assigns scores to oil from around the world because oil is not all the same. If oil from one region contains more sulfur, for example, it gets a lower score. The gasoline produced from it must be mixed with "cleaner" fuels to achieve a carbon reduction.

The air resources board attempts to include factors such as the environmental practices in the country of origin and the amount of emissions from shipping fuel here. But what it found was that because it needs more refining, oil from California and Canada scored worse than oil from faraway places like Saudi Arabia, even though our environmental laws are much stricter and shipping foreign oil and fuel to California takes a lot of oil and fuel.

If we import higher-scoring foreign oil, it would benefit nations such as Iraq and Saudi Arabia (and indirectly, producers like Iran), to the potential detriment of California's economy and energy independence.

The policy also requires California gasoline to be "improved" by adding ethanol. Alas, the highest-scoring and only cost-effective ethanol is sugar cane ethanol from Brazil. We would then have to ship Brazilian ethanol to California, using much fossil fuel. Environmentalists, including Jane Goodall, cite sugar cane production as the primary reason huge Brazilian corporations are clear-cutting pristine rain forest. We should not have to choose between clean air and massive deforestation.

The impact on the global food supply is even more startling. Scientists agree that our world cannot feed 7 billion people if we keep diverting food into our gas tanks. Scientific studies and media reports have credited shortsighted ethanol policies with causing starvation in places such as Haiti and Southeast Asia. The standard does not consider the effects of using so much cropland for fuel production, the rising cost of food, the diminishing supply or fossil fuel emissions from nations like Brazil, which now need to import more food.

And what of California's economy? I want to see a petroleum-free world, like many others. My wife and I own one car, a 45-mpg hybrid, and I bicycle everywhere I can. But as long as Californians are still using gas to fill their tanks and to heat their homes, they should have some of the jobs in that industry. There are more than 200,000 such jobs in Southern California. These are well-paying jobs, and driving them overseas doesn't make sense.

Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on January 27, 2013 at 9:06am

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/24/energy-transportfuel-idUS...

Gas at the gates of oil's transport fuel citadel
Transport fuel demand falling in OECD countries-BP
* Other fuels to steal third of transport sector growth-BP
* Gas could make inroads as price gap yawns
* China targets LNG for transport
* First gas-powered commercial flight left Qatar in January
By Andrew Callus
LONDON, Jan 24 (Reuters) - Crude oil's supremacy in motor fuels is pricing it out of power and industry, leaving it stuck in low-growth transport and vulnerable to a revolution that could favour natural gas.
International oil company BP predicts worldwide oil demand growth of just 0.8 percent a year up to 2030 - slower than for any other energy type and only half the projected total energy demand growth rate over the same period.
With cheaper fuels already pushing it out of industrial and power generation use, any extra oil demand now has to come from vehicles, shipping and aircraft.
But transport is slow growing. Efficiency gains brought about by high prices and anti-pollution regulation are the main reason. BP's Outlook 2030 study shows the fuel economy of new cars in the United States and China falling well below 5 litres per 100 kilometre by 2030 from between 7 and 8 now. [() ]
In OECD countries, transport fuel demand is set to actually fall as weak economies, a shift to smaller cars, and a move onto public transport in congested urban areas take a further toll, BP says. Worldwide, meanwhile, gas, biofuels and other alternatives are expected to steal almost a third of what growth there might be.
There is no immediate worry for producers of oil. The world consumes over 30 billion barrels each year, and even with no growth, approaching a third of 2011 proved global reserves of 1,653 billion barrels will be gone by 2030. Hence the urge to head for the Arctic and deeper into the oceans for new supplies.
And presenting BP's report last week, chief economist Christof Ruhl called the energy industry "a slow-moving beast" and said the oil glut some now fear is no more likely than the now discredited "peak oil" shortage predictions of a decade ago.
But he acknowledged surprise at the speed with which energy use per unit of wealth produced is falling around the world and said the pace of development in U.S. shale gas and shale oil had shocked the industry too.
Ian Taylor of the trading giant Vitol was asked in November about future oil industry shockers, or "game changers":
"I think it's when the Chinese and Americans work out how to put gas in those trucks and only use gas for transportation," he said, "and I've got a horrible feeling it may come a little bit quicker than we're all anticipating."
Gas is already converging on a similar overall market share to oil in the world's energy mix, at 26-28 percent, and international oil companies reflect that trend by equalising oil/gas exploration and production portfolios.
Their heavy spending on liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities, which freeze and squeeze gas into ocean-going vessels, is internationalising the gas market too. BP says LNG supplies will represent 15.5 percent of gas consumption by 2015.
It is power generation, not transport demand, that is driving gas growth.
But by happy accident, the reduced bulk that makes LNG portable also makes it a viable transport fuel, and oil executives are starting to see a point at which familiarity and availability could tip the balance away from diesel and gasoline.
In a presentation last year, Total's chief executive, Christophe de Margerie, said calorie for calorie, U.S. natural gas costs one sixth the price of crude. Even with gasoline and diesel still so dominant, a U.S. truck driver converting to natural gas derivatives could recover the cost in months. "Something's got to give if that differential stays around for long," he said.
IS IT A GAS PLANE?
Royal Dutch/Shell's market-leading investments in LNG are well documented, as are its widely-promoted LNG-powered trucks in Canada. In October last year, it also commissioned two LNG-powererd ships to service its Gulf of Mexico offshore rigs from Houston.
"You can rest assured they weren't in any way the economic option," said a senior Shell executive. "This was about sending a message, at the heart of the industry, at an important time."
Last year, the National Petroleum Council (NPC), a group backed by Shell and other big oil players, lobbied in favour of the environmental and energy security benefits of a shift to cleaner-burning gas and other oil-efficient measures, Transportation in the United States should "evolve at an accelerated rate," it said.
Even with the powerful oil industry behind a gas-for-transport revolution, the average "gas station" is unlikely to become exactly that overnight, probably leaving the biggest single slice of the transport industry, the private vehicle, to gasoline and diesel for some decades yet.
A more likely prize for LNG as a transport fuel is garbage trucks and other municipal service vehicles, along with mass transit systems like buses.
Trains, ships, and even aircraft are all potential targets too. Buses powered by compressed natural gas (CNG) - LNG's less potent older brother - already ply the streets of Dallas and other cities. Rotterdam and Singapore have both outlined plans to become a hub for LNG-powered shipping.
There's plenty to aim at here.
International shipping and aviation fuel plus road freight will account for about 15 million barrels a day of oil demand by 2035, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). That is a quarter of the projected 60 million barrel daily oil-for-transport pot. [() ]
LNG-powered ships are already a reality, even though the fleet is modest for now. A report by ship classifiers Det Norske Veritas last year predicted that 30 percent of new vessels will be LNG-powered by 2020. Tankers that carry LNG are an obvious early target. Another classifier, Lloyd's Register, said the use of LNG as a fuel will pick up from 2019 and could be as much as 8 percent of global bunker fuel demand before 2025.
Airlines have yet to crack the LNG nut, but the first commercial gas-powered civil aircraft flight left Doha for London on Jan. 9 this year, fuelled by another potential gas-to-transport game-changer - jet fuel made from gas.
Gas-to-liquids (GTL) technology is, for the time being, only economic on the very biggest scale. Shell's Pearl GTL plant in Qatar taps the world's biggest stand-alone gas field and supplied the fuel for that Qatar Airways Airbus A340-600 flight. Cheap U.S. gas is changing that, and Shell is looking to copy its Pearl success in the United States.
BP's figures puts gas at 5 percent of the transport fuel market by 2030, overtaking biofuels, which are already near that level. Oil's share will have fallen by then to 89 percent from 94 percent presently.
CHINA THE KEY
Nowhere is the pressure on oil-based transport fuels stronger than in the United States, where oil's biggest competitor, natural gas, has become very cheap - also as a result of innovations at the production end of the industry.
It is hard to measure how much fuel substitution is happening already, but analysts point to U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA) data showing diesel mysteriously stuck below its 4 million barrels a day pre-financial crisis levels, even though the economy has been expanding since 2009.
U.S. price gaps aside, BP's predictions, like those of other forecasters, put China centre stage as the driver of global energy demand growth.
It says China will account for approaching half of the 0.8 percent a year growth in oil demand it expects by 2030 - some 7 million barrels a day out of a total extra 16 million barrels.
Here again, LNG could make inroads.
In October last year, China unveiled a policy specifically designed to spur the transport sector's use of LNG as part of its push to clean up the heavily polluted air of its cities.
The Natural Development & Reform Commission policy targets buses, taxis and shipping and sets a target for gas to fill 10 percent of energy demand by the end of the decade.
Five LNG import terminals have already sprung up along China's east coast, and another dozen are planned. That is gas for the decades to come.
Beyond that, a recent EIA report made China the site of the biggest technologically recoverable reserves in the world of the shale gas that is changing the U.S. energy landscape.
"If the Chinese could do this, it would have enormous implications for them, for the oil industry, and possibly for global LNG trade too," EIA chief Adam Sieminski said in an interview in November 2012.

Permalink Reply by 015334grltd9m on January 27, 2013 at 9:44am

Dude,

This is in the wrong post, this belongs in my CNG truck discussion, it is the explanation and omen of my prophecy sent to me from the most high. 

Oh great Sage of the Utica, is this the written instruction for me?  Should my CNG truck post be on this your most holy post?  How can I transfer this to my truck post so that they will believe and know that you sent me?

Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on January 27, 2013 at 11:18am

Source: http://www.energytribune.com/71647/obamas-bonfire-of-green-energy-i... 

 

Obama’s Bonfire of Green Energy Inanities

Posted date: January 25, 2013In: Featured Articles, North America

By Peter C Glover

President Obama, as his Inauguration Address confirms, is in denial about both the climate and energy realities. Repeating the most alarmist rhetoric of ideologue-turned-salesman to oil interests Al Gore, Obama appeared ignorant of the fact that data shows global warming isn’t happening. The president has re-stated his desire for yet more backing to a green energy industry that is collapsing being wholly reliant on the lifeline of public subsidy. And that can only mean dumping further on the oil, gas and coal industries that made the US the powerhouse it still is.

Obama will be in good company in his ideological crusade in support of the doomed renewable revolution. Not with private investors who have been deserting green energy investments in their droves, but with other bureaucrats in denial – and who have little compunction in squandering someone else’s money.

In a Washington Times article in November Steve Goreham asked whether the green energy “fad” had run its course. His analysis was based on the RENIXX World index, the renewable energy industrial index of the world’s top green energy companies. Goreham further pointed out how the RENIXX index revealed green energy companies had been “on a roll…during the heydays of 2007 and 2008” through massive government funding but had lately hit an all-time low, down 90 percent against its December 2007 peak.. Across the Atlantic, investment flooded in as a result of guaranteed profits via the EU’s Climate Action and Renewable Energy policies. But, as Goreham pointed out, the wave of subsidy-driven green energy suddenly “hit a brick wall of fiscal reality”.

In Europe, hard-hit economies began slashing their subsidy regimes. Spain realized that paying solar producers up to ten times the rate for conventional electricity with a 20-year guaranteed return was not good business. As German’s were told they were paying eight times above the market rate via feed-in tariffs on bills to subsidize a ludicrously generous solar installation program, even bureaucrats were forced to admit the $140 billion over 20 years was unsustainable. In the UK, the split between Conservatives and Lib Dems over the government’s expensive rush to decarbonisation has also contributed to a steep drop in green investment. Between 2009 and 2011 funding for large scale green energy projects in the UK declined by 53 percent to just over $5 billion.

In the United States solar company after solar company has gone belly up even after receiving massive government bailout funding. Over half a billion dollars was wasted attempting to make Solyndra a viable operation. Last year Obama’s administration bailed out BrightSource Energy despite it being $1.8 billion in debt. In recent months two solar companies, Himin Solar and IPO, were in such financial st.... Thousands of ‘permanent’ green jobs were axed at companies like First Solar. Equally the scandal of green company executives making millions of dollars through hiked pay levels and ‘bonuses’ does tend to put investors off. As the Washington Post reported, Al Gore is today “50 times richer than when he left the vice-presidency in 2001” having made “$100 million partly through investing in alternative energy firms subsidized by the Obama administration.” According to the investment boys at Energy and Capital, a scandalous “80 percent of all the green subsidies and loans went to generous donors of President Obama.” And what has all this US taxpayer investment wrought? The whole heavily-subsidized kit and caboodle, from wind, to thermal, still only provides a paltry 9 percent of America’s energy needs.

In November, just over half of the Americans who voted may have re-elected Barack Obama but, according to a survey published at the time of the election, half of Americans can’t even name any renewable energy source into which the president is pouring their money.

But the burgeoning bad news for the renewable industry hasn’t stopped the bureaucrats at the European Investment Bank backing yet more astronomically expensive green energy projects. In 2012 the EIB handed over a cool $2.16 billion in public funds to the renewable energy industry outstripping the total amount dished out by the U.S. Government for wind, solar and other green energy projects. A devastating report in Die Welt in October also revealed how predictions about the expansion and cost for German wind turbines and solar panels have all been catastrophically wrong by “at least a factor of two, sometimes by a factor of five.” Chancellor Merkel had promised consumers that green energy subsidies would be no more than 3.6 cents per KW hour. But when Germany’s power grid operator recently announced the exact figure would raise the cost burden by 50 percent to 5.3 cents per KW hour widespread outrage followed. A spokesman for Germany’s business groups warned that the cost was so high it threatened “the de-industrialization of Germany”.

Earlier in the year, Spiegel Online ran an article showing how the massive subsidization of the German photovoltaics industry together with the cost incurred in upgrading the national grid to cope with variable loading had saddled consumers with a $377 billion bill and was proving “the costliest mistake in the history of German energy policy”. According to a report in Welt am Sonntag that left Germans facing the biggest electricity price increase in decades with 800,000 unable to pay their energy bills.

Just as President Obama re-commits his administration to a renewed assault – code for more massive subsidies – in favour of green energy, the US and European wind and solar industries are in obvious turmoil. Around 30 percent of the green jobs President Obama promised in his first-term have already been lost through bankruptcies. Other green jobs were lost to the Chinese market. Not that there is a shortage of energy investors. It’s just that they prefer to invest their money sensibly in the soaring success of much cheaper forms of energy, including low-cost natural, especially shale, gas and new sources of oil. Only bureaucrats are still fuelling the investment bonfires of green energy inanities.

It seems the naiveté of politicians who believe they can buck the market knows no bounds. By the time President Obama leaves office in 2016 we’ll all be wondering how we could possibly have been so gullible as to allow bureaucrats to sell us a lame duck renewable energy policy that fritters away so much of our money. How could we, for instance, have bought into claims that wind power really is a viable economic alternative to hydrocarbon power? How could we allow ourselves to have our pockets picked by bureaucrats with a vision to reverse the industrial revolution by proving that sailing ships really could be a serious commercial competitor to ‘new-fangled’ steam ships?

But then, if you are raking in the kind of money government bureaucrats make, or the windfall profits guaranteed to green energy entrepreneurs, you can afford to invest your own money in wind power – and buy yourself a yacht. Why should they care that those forced into fuel poverty are paying for it?

 

Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on February 4, 2013 at 4:48pm

Source: http://www.robertbryce.com/articles/482-the-fish-and-wildlife-servi...

The Fish and Wildlife Service Is Not for the Birds

February 1, 2013
The Wall Street Journal

On June 20, 1782, the Continental Congress, after nearly six years of haggling and numerous design changes, finally approved the Great Seal of the United States. In doing so, it made the bald eagle our national symbol. This year, in the name of clean energy, the Fish and Wildlife Service is considering changing federal rules so that a wind-energy developer can be granted an "incidental-take" permit allowing wind projects to kill bald eagles and golden eagles for up to 30 years.

On Jan. 15, the Fish and Wildlife Service determined that the New Era Wind Farm—a proposed project near Red Wing, Minn.—might kill as many as 14 bald eagles per year. Despite that toll, the agency said the developer of the 48-turbine wind farm could go ahead and apply for an eagle-kill permit. If granted, it could be the first project to get one. At least one other wind-energy concern, Oregon's West Butte Wind Project, also has applied for an incidental-take permit, and others are sure to follow.

The Fish and Wildlife Service said that its estimate for bald eagle kills at the New Era facility was a "worst-case scenario" that "would not damage" the local population of bald eagles. That might be true. Nevertheless, the possibility that federal authorities are willing to issue such a permit once again exposes the double standard at work when it comes to renewable energy.

For years, the wind industry has had de facto permission to violate both the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (which protects 1,000 species) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Federal authorities have never brought a case under either law—despite the Fish and Wildlife Service's estimate that domestic turbines kill some 440,000 birds per year.

While the wind industry enjoys its exemption from prosecution under these federal wildlife laws, the Interior Department has aggressively brought cases against the oil-and-gas industry. In 2011, the Fish and Wildlife Service filed criminal indictments against three drillers who were operating in North Dakota's Bakken field. One of those companies, Continental Resources, was indicted for killing a single bird (a Say's Phoebe) that is protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. This law was adopted in 1918, at a time when several bird species were being decimated by hunters.

Compare the action taken against Continental Resources with the Pine Tree wind project, a three-year-old facility owned by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. Since 2009, nine golden eagle carcasses have been recovered at the project and reported to the Fish and Wildlife Service. Los Angeles Times reporter Louis Sahagun reported on Feb. 16, 2012, that at least six of the birds had been struck by turbine blades. Yet there have been no indictments. Jill Birchell, special agent in charge of law enforcement for the Fish and Wildlife Service in California and Nevada refused to comment on the Pine Tree case, other than to tell me that "it is an ongoing criminal investigation."

Federal law has protected the bald eagle since 1940, the golden eagle since 1962. Violating the Eagle Protection Act can result in a fine of $250,000 and imprisonment for two years. From 1976 to 2007, the bald eagle also was protected under the Endangered Species Act. It got off the federal endangered-species list—among only a handful of animals ever to do so—thanks to decades of conservation efforts, including captive-breeding projects, some of which were sponsored by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Today, there are about 10,000 breeding pairs of bald eagles in the lower 48 states. But they are still protected by both the Eagle and Migratory Bird acts.

Getting a permit to kill eagles has always been difficult. Indian tribes are allowed to obtain eagle feathers for religious purposes. In addition, some scientific and educational entities can be permitted to possess eagle parts.

The wind-energy lobby has sought such permission for years, insisting that eagle-kill permits ought to last longer than the current limit of five years. Last April the Fish and Wildlife Service agreed, and it published a Federal Register notice saying it planned to extend incidental-take permits to 30 years so as to "facilitate the responsible development of renewable energy."

Although the agency hasn't made a final ruling on the 30-year permit, the proposal has riled environmental groups and several Native American tribes. The Natural Resources Defense Council, the Defenders of Wildlife, the National Audubon Society, the Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society submitted a joint statement to the Fish and Wildlife Service saying that the 30-year term was too long and that there was a "lack of sufficient baseline population data" on the two eagle species.

An eagle-kill permit "infuriates me," says Daniel Stussy, who owns a 20-acre farm on the border of the proposed New Era Wind Farm in Minnesota. "As a hunter, if I mistook the bald eagle for a Canada goose, a big fine would be the least of my worries. I couldn't even go to town for coffee because I'd be so ashamed."

Kelly Fuller of the American Bird Conservancy has a stronger warning: "If you want to turn the public against the wind industry, building a project that kills a lot of bald eagles will do it."

Mr. Bryce is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and the author of "Power Hungry: The Myths of 'Green' Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future" (PublicAffairs, 2010).

 

My comment: Clean, Green Natural Gas does not kill Bald Eagles - JS

 

Permalink Reply by Nancy LeNau on February 4, 2013 at 5:25pm

Thank you Jack... for posting this information.  We have a pair of Bald Eagles on our farm. They fish out of our lakes.  Just Beautiful !  I hope MANY read your posts !  You... are My Fountain..for great information !   I have learned so much from you.....  God Bless you !  Nancy

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• …
• 8
• Next ›
• Page