Trumps Oil Industry....

[James Regan + 1,776]

1 minute ago, Douglas Buckland said:

You can kill me AFTER we get that 292 running...

I agree, best plan, see were working in unison but nor covertly....

[Wombat + 1,028]

12 hours ago, Valerie Williams said:

I have no idea what that means, but back at ya. 😁

It means "go girl"!

[Wombat + 1,028]

11 hours ago, Valerie Williams said:

I’m not looking for someone to blame. I’m dismayed that Saudi’s recent price gambit was so badly timed that we all got hit with double-whammy of price drop and consumption free fall. Yes, the tight oil producers kept prices low over past few years. Yes, that has competed with my offshore projects. I was only asking why everyone accepts that the onus was on the US to reduce production (pre-pandemic), and not the Saudis. It looked to me like they could have made a little room in the market for US oil.

The Saudis made over 5mb/d of room for US, Russia on the other hand...

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

23 minutes ago, James Regan said:

Try Abroath Scotland, Number-nuts😂 That word doesn't exist Number Nuts hauhauhau

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RM_Poole

[Wombat + 1,028]

10 hours ago, Valerie Williams said:

Only if you truly think electricity can be scaled to replace carbon fuels.

Ezy Peezy, happening as we speak, but Hydrogen cars on the way too. I am waiting for Hydrogen/Electric Hybrid. Might take 15-20 years in Australia, but Koreans are well on their way.

[Wombat + 1,028]

9 hours ago, D Coyne said:

Valerie,

Keep in mind, the electricity stored in the battery is at least 85% efficient from outlet to wheel  (similar comparison of gas pump to wheel) vs about 27% for an average ICE vehicle, so roughly 3 times less electrical energy required for land transport, I own a Model 3 in the Northern US and it works very nicely.  Natural gas, wind, solar, hydro and nuclear can provide plenty of energy for EVs.  A widely interconnected grid (which pretty much already exists in the US) may allow wind and solar widely distributed to provide 90% of load hours with minimal natural gas backup, by overbuilding wind and solar to about 2 times average load hours.

https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2018/ee/c7ee03029k#!divAbstract

What is more, if US invested heavily in battery farms and pumped hydro, wld only need to over-build wind and solar X1.4! Some states have already "seen the light".

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

3 hours ago, Valerie Williams said:

I see what you did there

What?  It's just a simple misspelling.   

Carbondale has its own Urban Dictionary entry, but don't believe everything you read.  They left out the part about Belushi being a GOD! (Toga! Toga! Toga!) with food fights in the canteens each year on his birthday and a somber moment of reflection before shots during Happy Hour on the anniversary of his death (March 5, 1982.  R.I.P. John). 

Halloween festivities on the strip are said to have more one-day Romans than any other place on Earth, or that might just be something a couple of guys said, nobody cares!  LOL!  Halloween became known for a few small parties in the 80s (the police called them RIOTS, but what do they know.  If you look closely, you might see I had different hair back then [photo taken during a moment of civil disobedience, at least that's what they said]).

Back to present day, and isn't it interesting that I'd find myself on Oil Price, having a brief few comments (and fantastic memories) about my alma mater, that's in a town called Carbondale (so named for the coal deposits in the area), of all things?  Fantastic!

Cheers everybody!  Enjoy your lockdown (Jesus, what have we come to?)

[Wombat + 1,028]

7 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

These analyses bother me, for three reasons: 1) they act like solar and wind overcapacity must be avoided at all costs, 2) long-term storage (weeks or months) is a huge problem, 3) long-distance energy transport is a huge problem.  OK: 1) Overbuilding solar or wind is not a problem if the capital cost is low enough. This cost has been decreasing and will probably continue to decrease. 2 and 3)  We already have long-distance transport and long-term storage for Natural Gas. If wind and solar are cheap enough (see point 1) then electricity can be used to produce methane, which is the same as natural gas Conversion efficiencies are not great but are improving, and they don't matter much if you are using excess electricity (see point 1). It can be and is being stored for months, not hours, and it can be and is being shipped in massive amounts by pipeline and LNG tanker, and we already have the infrastructure in place to convert it back into electricity.

US cld also become a "green Hydrogen" superpower and use not just in cars, but gas and coal plants as well. All the infrastructure there, apart from the green hydrogen production.

[Wombat + 1,028]

54 minutes ago, James Regan said:

After Operation Anaconda where help was refused it became common place in the ME, the British SAS had more middle eastern experience the the USA. You know these factoids are only available for special clearance, I would have to kill you if I told you.....

Without Googling it I assume by Poole your referring to the SBS, if so (as I haven't googled it) the SBS are not based in Poole, Dorset, they come from far far North.

Australian SAS also do half the recon for US in Afghanistan. Also, when Tony Abbott became our PM, I requested that he double our fleet of C-17 from four to eight, which thankfully, he did. This has allowed us to provide logistics in both Afghanistan and also our F-18's in Iraq. Unfortunately, our new PM has no interest in National Security, only class warfare.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

51 minutes ago, Wombat said:

US cld also become a "green Hydrogen" superpower and use not just in cars, but gas and coal plants as well. All the infrastructure there, apart from the green hydrogen production.

I respectfully disagree. "Green CH4" is far simpler, because the CH4 infrastructure is massive: it currently handles more than 30% of electricity and all of NG heating and chem feedstock. There is no comparable H2 infrastructure beyond tiny demos that might be as much as 0.01% of the CH4 infrastucture. Thus, using solar and wind to make CH4 requires no additional infrastructure other than the convertors. You take the extra efficiency loss when you convert H2==>CH4, but you need no new transport, storage, or generators.

[Wombat + 1,028]

6 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

I respectfully disagree. "Green CH4" is far simpler, because the CH4 infrastructure is massive: it currently handles more than 30% of electricity and all of NG heating and chem feedstock. There is no comparable H2 infrastructure beyond tiny demos that might be as much as 0.01% of the CH4 infrastucture. Thus, using solar and wind to make CH4 requires no additional infrastructure other than the convertors. You take the extra efficiency loss when you convert H2==>CH4, but you need no new transport, storage, or generators.

No such thing as "green CH4" Dan. CH4 releases CO2 on ignition. Why convert H2 into CH4 when u can burn H2 in coal and gas power stations with minimal conversions? H2 also much more energy dense than CH4 so suitable for long-range trucking, not just cars?

[Wombat + 1,028]

12 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

I respectfully disagree. "Green CH4" is far simpler, because the CH4 infrastructure is massive: it currently handles more than 30% of electricity and all of NG heating and chem feedstock. There is no comparable H2 infrastructure beyond tiny demos that might be as much as 0.01% of the CH4 infrastucture. Thus, using solar and wind to make CH4 requires no additional infrastructure other than the convertors. You take the extra efficiency loss when you convert H2==>CH4, but you need no new transport, storage, or generators.

Did u know that Germany only building up use of natural gas coz they can use the same infrastructure for H2?

[Wombat + 1,028]

13 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

I respectfully disagree. "Green CH4" is far simpler, because the CH4 infrastructure is massive: it currently handles more than 30% of electricity and all of NG heating and chem feedstock. There is no comparable H2 infrastructure beyond tiny demos that might be as much as 0.01% of the CH4 infrastucture. Thus, using solar and wind to make CH4 requires no additional infrastructure other than the convertors. You take the extra efficiency loss when you convert H2==>CH4, but you need no new transport, storage, or generators.

That is why NG called a "bridge" fuel!

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

Just now, Wombat said:

No such thing as "green CH4" Dan. CH4 releases CO2 on ignition. Why convert H2 into CH4 when u can burn H2 in coal and gas power stations with minimal conversions? H2 also much more energy dense than CH4 so suitable for long-range trucking, not just cars?

CH4 made with electricity removes exactly the same amount of CO2 from the air as it emits when it is burned. THis is not fossil CH4 AKA "natural gas".   Yes, there minor losses, but these are inconsequential compared to fossil NG.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

1 minute ago, Wombat said:

Did u know that Germany only building up use of natural gas coz they can use the same infrastructure for H2?

H2 can be added to the existing NG infrastructure in amounts up to about 10% before problems arise.

[Wombat + 1,028]

4 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

H2 can be added to the existing NG infrastructure in amounts up to about 10% before problems arise.

What idiot told u that Dan, asking honestly?

[Wombat + 1,028]

10 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

H2 can be added to the existing NG infrastructure in amounts up to about 10% before problems arise.

Green H2 is "pure", NG is highly contaminated and corrosive (have to remove mercury etc).

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

7 minutes ago, Wombat said:

What idiot told u that Dan, asking honestly?

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/51995.pdf

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

1 minute ago, Wombat said:

Green H2 is "pure", NG is highly contaminated and corrosive (have to remove mercury etc).

Green CH4 is also "pure", since it derives from green H2 plus atmospheric CO2.

Edited April 26, 2020 by Dan Clemmensen
spelling

[Wombat + 1,028]

13 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

H2 can be added to the existing NG infrastructure in amounts up to about 10% before problems arise.

Who said anything about "mixing" H2 with NG, maybe that wld be a problem. I talking about totally replacing NG with H2, one pipeline at a time, just as the Germans are planning.

[0R0 + 6,251]

5 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Absolutely. Conversion from H2 to CH4 is a wasteful extra step. It's only advantage is that is can immediately use the entire existing storage, transport and power generation infrastructure, both physical and financial. No need to modify anything, just "merely"(!) add the power-to-gas plants near the solar and wind fields. The "hydrogen economy" requires either an entirely new infrastructure or an "interesting" transition of the existing CH4 infrastructure. CH4 is stored as a gas primarily in depleted oil or gas fields. For example, PG&E buys gas in the Spring and Fall for use in Summer and Winter, with some basically being stored for 6 months.

That is the point. Besides, you can skip producing H2 by electrolysis and go directly to produce electrogas which depending on your catalyst produces CH3OH+CH4+CO or C2H5OH+C2H6+CO. That is very easy to clean up into alcohols and Ethane for chemical industry and NG combustion use and you can polymerize the ethane to longer chains in your cracker to produce liquids fuels (that one is still expensive). It is going to happen once there is a good water supply to the S.West US, Australia and Saudi. 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

I'm happy with H2 or whatever works. I simply think it's a heck of a lot simpler to sell CH4 into the existing system than it is to make changes throughout the system to accommodate H2. But the market can make this decision. The main point is that power-to-gas, either H2 or CH4, allows for transportation (transcontinental and intercontinental) and storage (months) on a massive scale, thus answering the critics of wind and solar, who keep whining about batteries and electrical transmission lines.

[Wombat + 1,028]

5 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

I'm happy with H2 or whatever works. I simply think it's a heck of a lot simpler to sell CH4 into the existing system than it is to make changes throughout the system to accommodate H2. But the market can make this decision. The main point is that power-to-gas, either H2 or CH4, allows for transportation (transcontinental and intercontinental) and storage (months) on a massive scale, thus answering the critics of wind and solar, who keep whining about batteries and electrical transmission lines.

Ah, I think we were talkin at cross-purposes. I was referring specifically to electricity generation, the report u quote is about everything, including heating for homes. Interesting article though, thanks for that! Did u note that H2 was 50% of the NY supply up to the 50's, and still is in Hawaii? Don't underestimate the fossil fuel lobby attempts to keep their more expensive option dominant  

[Wombat + 1,028]

12 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

I'm happy with H2 or whatever works. I simply think it's a heck of a lot simpler to sell CH4 into the existing system than it is to make changes throughout the system to accommodate H2. But the market can make this decision. The main point is that power-to-gas, either H2 or CH4, allows for transportation (transcontinental and intercontinental) and storage (months) on a massive scale, thus answering the critics of wind and solar, who keep whining about batteries and electrical transmission lines.

I could not agree more that the critics of wind and solar are clutching at straws, but the report clearly shows that 5-15% H2 could be added with zero changes to existing infrastructure. I think that US wind and solar operators simply haven't cottoned on yet, same as they don't bother to buy batteries even though it would be very profitable for them. Clearly, the German utilities are streets ahead, and I suppose that is what happens when you have clear renewable energy target, unlike US?

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

4 minutes ago, Wombat said:

I could not agree more that the critics of wind and solar are clutching at straws, but the report clearly shows that 5-15% H2 could be added with zero changes to existing infrastructure. I think that US wind and solar operators simply haven't cottoned on yet, same as they don't bother to buy batteries even though it would be very profitable for them. Clearly, the German utilities are streets ahead, and I suppose that is what happens when you have clear renewable energy target, unlike US?

Yes, the US is more market-driven, but we're actually not doing that badly. I think one big reason that wind and solar are not yet making gas is that we are currently awash in NG. Once we begin to get our of that mess, the price will go up and the wind and solar guys will add the power-to-gas equipment. They'll go to H2 first and just inject it onto the current system. Then, the power companies will decide to either convert to H2, or pay enough for CH4 to make H2-to-CH4 convertors attractive, whichever makes more economic sense.  Either way, power-to-gas will eventually win against pure-play drilling for NG. It may or may not win against "associated gas", which is so cheap it's killing pure-play gas. So power-to-gas won't win until the Permian goes dry, but it'll be there when we need it.