Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jim Litwinowicz on March 5, 2013 at 1:50pm

Jack: good to see Shell investing in infrastructure. They are also partnered with Pilot to put 150 CNG station at its truck stops IIRC.

I have long thought it would be great for the gascos to form a consortium to invest in various projects to stimulate CNG and LNG end users. They could easily raise 5 or 10 billion. They could build more stations, finance new LNG trucks, offer low interest loans for truck conversion, and more. It would benefit them by boosting the market. And a huge benefit to the country on many levels.

I'm not a big believer in government intervention like tax credits.I much [refer the private sector to work together to get it done.  However, i would gladly see them cancel all the solar, wind, and gasohol boondoggles and support nat gas better.

Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on March 8, 2013 at 12:08pm

Here goes some of those Marcellus/Utica NGLs (ethane) to Europe.

Source: http://www.ineos.com/News/~/INEOS-Europe-and-Evergas-enter-into-lon...

15 year contract signed to ship ethane in 2015 from Marcus Hook/Mariner East in PA to Norway for European cracker

INEOS press release on new ethane tank/cracker and Marcos Hook/Mariner East/Range deal

INEOS Europe and Evergas enter into long-term shipping agreements


23 January 2013

INEOS Europe has entered into 15-years shipping agreements with Evergas for the transportation of ethane into Europe from the US Mariner East project.

Under the agreements, Evergas will build and operate new customised vessels that will be dedicated to the transportation of ethane from Marcus Hook, US to Rafnes, Norway.

These new agreements follow the recent completion of supply and infrastructure agreements by INEOS, to access ethane feedstocks from the US for use in its European cracker complexes and the announcement of the construction of a new ethane tank in Rafnes.

The new vessels, that will enter into service in 2015, are tailored to meet the specific needs of this project and will be built to the latest specifications matching highest environmental and efficiency performance measures.

David Thompson, Procurement & Supply Chain Director at INEOS Olefins & Polymers North said: "These shipping agreements are the final piece of the Mariner East Project, allowing INEOS to import competitively priced ethane to our Rafnes cracker from the US. Evergas' proposed solution matches perfectly our needs and offers innovative solutions such as the dual-fuel capability. We look forward to a mutually successful long-term relationship"

Martin Ackermann, CEO of Evergas said: "A strong commercial relationship, an open mind and a willingness to look to the future by INEOS has been imperative in developing innovative and technically advanced vessels that will offer safe, flexible, green and efficient transport solutions to the benefit of all involved parties."

The shipping agreement with Evergas follows a number of well timed investments by INEOS that will help secure a significant volume of ethane feedstock from the US, for use in its European cracker complexes.

On 26th September 2012, INEOS Europe announced that it had completed supply agreements with Range Resources for the lifting, of ethane from the Marcus Hook Facility from 2015. At the same time INEOS finalised Pipeline Transportation Services and Terminal Services Agreements for the shipping of ethane from Houston, Pennsylvania, to Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania, with subsidiaries of Sunoco.

On the 4th December 2012 INEOS also confirmed that it will invest in the construction of a new ethane tank at its Rafnes site in Norway. An EPC contract with TGE Gas Engineering for the construction of a new tank and expanded infrastructure has been signed, and the facilities will be commissioned in 2015. Construction work has already started.

The ethane imported from the US will allow INEOS to enhance the competitiveness of its business in world markets and as a consequence, secure the long term future of its sites in Europe.

Permalink Reply by 015334grltd9m on March 8, 2013 at 12:14pm

What kind of vessels and what shipyard is to build these ships? 

CNG tankers perhaps?

Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on March 8, 2013 at 1:58pm

Ethane is a bit tricky to transport.

Not CNG tanker; for long range transport, needs to be liquified,not compressed.

To liquefy petroleum gases for ocean shipment at atmospheric pressure it is necessary to lower their temperature. The lighter the gas, the colder the temperature must be.

Butane needs to be cooled to 31°F., Propane needs to be cooled to -44°F., Ethane needs to be cooled to -128°F., and LNG (methane) needs to be cooled to -259°F.

The lower the temperatures required to liquefy a given gas, the more technical problems presented in the cooling and transportation of that gas by refrigerated ship.

The handling of liquefied Butane and Propane is relatively easy.

The handling of Ethane or LNG (Methane) is significantly more difficult.

Handling Ethane is not quite as difficult as LNG, but still is challenging.

One challenge in handling Ethane results from it being explosive in the atmosphere when at low concentrations (as low as 3%); it likes to go BOOM.

 

Ethane carriers will likely be constructed at shipyards that have the most experience in building LNG carriers – likely in Korea or Japan.

 

JS

Permalink Reply by 015334grltd9m on March 8, 2013 at 2:23pm

Sorry Jack, I was stuck on those damn CNG tankers, I forgot the content.  Sounds like larger refrigeration ships will be needed.  Although I was in submarine design when I wasn't an old man, we did design and build LNG tankers but never heard of any of them going boom.  I really would like to see American shipbuilding commercially return.

Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on March 9, 2013 at 1:40pm

Source: http://hotair.com/archives/2013/03/09/ethanol-regs-push-us-into-the...

 

Ethanol regs push us into “the blend wall”

posted at 3:31 pm on March 9, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

Filed under the “we hate when we turn out to be right” category, domestic energy producers are facing some tough choices in the coming months thanks for a one – two punch of ethanol and government regulations. A combination of the drought this summer wiping out a fair portion of the corn crop and an unfunded mandate scheme by the federal government have resulted in there not being enough affordable ethanol for producers to blend into E-10 fuel. When producers can’t meet the minimum amount of “renewables” required by Uncle Sam, they have the choice of using RINs (Renewable Identification Numbers issued by the government) instead. Since the RINs are able to be traded, this makes them into a new sort of commodity exchange system, and like any other, when supply goes down, prices go up.

Prices of renewable fuel credits, needed by refiners to comply with the nation’s Renewable Fuel Standard, have skyrocketed over the past few months, an indication to some that the dreaded “blend wall” is close.

The price for the traded Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs) for corn-based ethanol have jumped from a trading range of about 2-3 cents/RIN to as much as 79 cents/RIN.

Trading for 2013 ethanol RINs Tuesday started the day at 75 cents/RIN and got as high as 79 cents/RIN before dropping back down to 75 cents/RIN by assessment time. Platts assessed RINS Tuesday at 75 cents/RIN.

The “blend wall,” as it’s known in industry circles, is the point where there is more gas to be blended than ethanol to use. They’ve known this day was coming for some time, but most analysts thought it would take a few years longer. The drought, as mentioned above, has accelerated the timetable. This leaves refiners with only a few choices, and none of them are good for you.

If RIN prices move too high, refiners will be left with three options that won’t be “popular,” said Jason Bordoff, Professor of Professional Practice in International and Public Affairs Director, Center on Global Energy Policy, at Columbia University, at the IHS CERAWeek conference. The options include passing the cost of RINs to consumers through higher retail prices, exporting products, or lowering refinery utilization rates.

Bloomberg has more on this, charitably translated into normal English for the layman. The key figure to watch here is the fact that we are currently projected to only have an available supply of 12.3 billion gallons of ethanol available for blending in 2013. To keep up with government mandates under the Renewable Fuel Standard, 13.8 billion gallons would be needed.

The long and the short of it is that they can either sell their fuel elsewhere, charge more for it to cover the cost of the RINs or produce less. (Which also drives up prices.) Either way, you lose and the EPA wins.

 

..................................................................................................................................................................................

Jack asks: Why use corn (aka FOOD) to make Ethanol?

Source: http://chenected.aiche.org/energy/why-not-ethanol-from-natural-gas-...

Why Not Ethanol from Natural Gas, Instead of from Corn?

By Peter Spitz |

This year’s serious drought gives rise to new questions about the practicality of ethanol from corn. At the same time, the U.S. is experiencing a natural gas boom that has brought with it low prices that are predicted to last long term. Given these concurrent situations, how about ethanol from natural gas instead? It seems like an ideal time for the government to change current legislation regarding feedstocks for the production of ethanol that is blended into motor fuel.

Corn as an ethanol feedstock

Readers will recall that the government passed the Renewable Fuels Act that led to the construction of a large number of so-called Gasohol plants that produce ethanol from corn and up to last year received a subsidy to make this production economically feasible. The background was an EPA finding that blending ethanol or other alcohols into gasoline produced a cleaner-burning fuel that reduced the production of smog caused by the emission of unburned or partially burned gasoline.

The use of corn became a boon to farmers who now had another outlet for their crop and the ethanol mandate led to the construction of a whole new industry to turn corn into a motor fuel. The downside was and is that corn is a food product so that using it to make a fuel, with government subsidies, is arguably a negative for the global food supply and has the effect of raising the price of corn. For this reason, the government has encouraged – in fact mandated – that refiners use increasing amounts of ethanol and other fuel products made from cellulosic materials (switchgrass, corn stalks, wood chips, etc.) for gasoline blending. However, no such material is commercially available as yet since the technology is still under development and its future uncertain. Meanwhile, the amount of produced ethanol (all from corn) will increase every year through 2015.

The leap from corn to natural gas

There is an obvious step to take. We should amend the current legislation to allow the production of ethanol from natural gas. A technology for this was actually used in the 1960s by US Industrial Chemicals Corporation and by Shell and is still in use in Saudi Arabia today. A new, quite different technology has recently been developed by Celanese Corporation and will be installed in a very large ethanol plant in China.

Source: Celanese

The illustrated comparison of this technology with corn-based ethanol on a Middle East basis is difficult to analyze since no feedstock prices are provided, but U.S. petrochemical feedstock prices are now in close parity with the Middle East. It is clear that ethanol can today be produced in the U.S. from natural gas at a lower cost than from corn. But this will not happen unless the government allows at least some production of fuel ethanol from gas, which is not a “renewable” fuel and therefore not currently eligible as an ethanol feedstock.. Building a few ethanol-from-natural gas plants will still keep most of the corn-based industry in operation, given the huge amount of corn-based ethanol now being produced. But there would be a beneficial effect on corn prices as less of this material is used to make a fuel. A subsidy should remain in place for cellulosic ethanol, since it is in our interest to use waste organic materials to make a needed product.

Balancing objectives for optimal outcome

If the government allows some gas-based ethanol to be produced, there will be a hue and cry from the corn-based ethanol producers (and their congressmen) who will feel their industry threatened. So, the government must balance the objectives. What the government might do is to allow a certain amount of gas-based ethanol to be produced by selling licenses to do so. The government must then balance the market-based incentive for petrochemical producers to make ethanol from gas against the effect of its policy on corn price, on the corn-based ethanol producers who established an entire industry as a result of government actions, and on the price of fuel ethanol. This can be made to work, in my opinion.

 

 

Jack says: Clean, Green, CHEAP Natural Gas is the ANSWER!

Now what was your Question?

 

 

Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on March 10, 2013 at 11:59am

Trolls blocking the Bridge to the Future.

Source: http://www.presseurop.eu/en/content/news-brief/3478241-shale-gas-wa...

 

Romania: ‘Shale gas war begins in Bârlad’

1 March 2013

Presseurop

Evenimentul zilei

Evenimentul zilei, 1 March 2013

Moscow is attempting to block the extraction of Romanian shale gas, which would reduce the reliance of the country and European Union on Russian energy, points out the daily.

At the end of January, Romanian Prime Minister Victor Ponta changed his postion on the issue, having previously announced in the spring of 2012 that he was opposed to drilling.

“A Russian hand” is apparently behind the protests in Bârlad, in eastern Romania, where more than 8,000 people demonstrated on February 27.

 

Jack heard the rumor that Yoko and Sean will be heading over to Romania to join the protest .... as soon as they return from beloved Comrade Hugo Chavez's funeral.

 

 

Permalink Reply by Tom Tarkowski on March 10, 2013 at 12:25pm

Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on March 13, 2013 at 5:46pm

Source: http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=4288&mn=111318&p...

E85 vs Regular Unleaded Gasoline

Edmund's did a study on this, see link below, with a 667 mile round trip road loop, Chev Tahoe LT.

Results summary:

E85 had 26.5% worse fuel economy, 13.5 mpg versus 18.3 mpg

E85 had 0.5% better CO2 emissions, 703.1 pounds versus 706.5 pounds

It's unbelievable that Congress has legislated this malarkey, and EPA enforces it.  Food prices have skyrocketed ($7 corn).  Nothing has been gained.  The net effect is definitely a loss to Americans (except for Big Food and USDA).

At $3.75 gasoline price, you would need $2.76 E85 price to break even in cost at a 26.5% fuel economy hit.  E85 is currently selling at about a 40 cent discount to regular unleaded, so why anyone would fill up with this stuff is a complete mystery. 

 

Edmund's E85 study 

 

Oh, by the way, when you factor in the CO2 emissions from plowing, harvesting, moving the corn to ethanol plants and transporting the ethanol to be blended with gasoline, the CO2 emissions from an E85 driven vehicle would be substantially worse than just using regular unleaded. 

Jack says ... I'll take Clean, Green, CHEAP Compressed Natural Gas

Permalink Reply by Dan on March 14, 2013 at 3:08am

Even worse news.  I think the cost of my sour mash wiskey has risen from this blunder.

Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on March 14, 2013 at 4:59am

Governor Moonbeam says frac away!

Source: http://www.courant.com/news/politics/sns-rt-us-california-brown-fra...

 

California governor Brown says state needs to look at "fracking”

Rory CarrollReuters

10:35 p.m. EDT, March 13, 2013

 

 SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - California Governor Jerry Brown, a prominent environmentalist, said on Wednesday the state should consider the use of "fracking" technology to develop its massive shale oil reserves and reduce reliance on imported oil.

 

 Brown, who led California's efforts to curb climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, cautioned the state would develop rules to preserve the environment, and said many questions on the technology were still to be answered.

 

 "We want to get the greenhouse gas emissions down, but we also want to keep our economy going. That's that balance that's required," he said at an event to announce the approval of three new renewable energy projects.

 

U.S. oil and natural gas production has soared on the back of technological advances based on fracking, which involves injecting water and chemicals to fracture rock formations and unlock deposits that are untappable by conventional means.

 

 While most production so far is from deposits has come from states in the U.S. interior, California hosts the vast Monterey shale deposit, which the U.S. Energy Department has estimated could hold upward of 15 billion barrels of oil, about 64 percent of the nation's total shale oil resources.

 

 Because of its geology, the Monterey shale is particularly deep and hard to reach, presenting challenges to oil companies hoping to extract its huge resources.

 

 Environmental groups have also taken a hard line against fracking, saying it has the potential to pollute drinking water supplies.

 

 Some groups have called for an outright ban on the practice in California, and state lawmakers have introduced a flurry of bills that seek to regulate the industry.

 

 Brown said any decisions on fracking would be based on science and common sense, and on a process that "listens to people but also wants to take advantage of the great opportunities we have."

 

 "The fossil fuel deposits in California are incredible, the potential is extraordinary," he said. "But between now and development lies a lot of questions that need to be answered."

 

 Even if California cut its dependence on oil altogether, it could still make sense to continue producing oil if it can be sold elsewhere, he added.

 

 If the Monterey deposit was fully developed, it could produce about 600,000 barrels of oil a day, doubling the state's current production levels and eliminating all foreign imports into California for 50 years, said Tupper Hull, a spokesman for the refiner group Western States Petroleum Association.

 

 However, he added that such a level of production was unlikely to be reached quickly given the difficult geology of the Monterey shale.

 

 (Reporting by Rory Carroll; Editing by Richard Pullin)

Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on March 14, 2013 at 6:13pm

Source:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/renewableenergy/8236254/Win...

Wind turbines 'less efficient than claimed'

Wind turbines are 25 per cent less effective than the renewable energy industry claims, according to research.

11:08AM GMT 02 Jan 2011

The John Muir Trust (JMT), one of Scotland's leading conservation bodies, has challenged the common assertion that wind farms run at an average of 30 per cent capacity over a year.

A study carried out for the Trust into the energy generated by dozens of wind farms, the majority of which are in Scotland, between November 2009 and last month, found they actually ran at 22 per cent of capacity.

Campaigners insist the figures, drawn from data provided by the National Grid, challenge the role of wind farms as an efficient source of renewable energy.

They said hundreds of wind farms had secured planning permission across Scotland based on inaccurate assumptions of their output.

"This analysis shows that over the course of a year, the average load factor fell well short of what the industry claims, yet the 30 per cent figure is peddled at every public inquiry into a proposed wind farm," said Helen McDade, head of policy at the JMT. "This data is needed to counter that hype."

 

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• …
• 8
• Next ›
• Page