The Coal Industry May Never Recover From The Pandemic

[ralfy + 55]

On 6/21/2020 at 9:11 AM, ronwagn said:

We should help them develop and transport natural gas as CNG and LNG or piped. 

Current energy use for the global population is around 20 TW, with 71 pct earning less than $10 daily. In order to meet the basic needs of that population, it will need around 50 TW.

 

[Strangelovesurfing + 737]

On 6/20/2020 at 7:19 AM, Gerry Maddoux said:

2) Shale oil is not going to decline, once this is all over. Why not? Because to not have it would immediately subject the United States of America--California included--to the volatile whims of the Kingdom of the Place That Spawned the Prince who had Mr. Khashoggi cut up into Tiny Pieces. 

I would add shale will just modulate output depending on oil prices, it'll never collapse like Saudi wants to happen. One of the biggest impacts shale has had on oil production is disrupting the old 'gold prospector' model of oil discovery/production. Why go spend enormous amounts of money on exploration when you already have a massive resource that can be scaled up or down depending on profitability basically at will. IMO that is the main reason exploration of new resources has almost become passé. Shale oil = RIP prospecting.

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

^

Very well put. I agree completely. 

No matter what you think about shale, it is a wonderful American asset that, like you say, can be turned off and on.

The Saudis failed to understand that. 

[markslawson + 1,042]

15 hours ago, NickW said:

• Renewable energy (including biofuels) posted a record increase in consumption in energy terms (3.2 EJ). This was also the largest increment for any source of energy in 2019. 
• Wind provided the largest contribution to renewables growth (1.4 EJ) followed closely by solar (1.2 EJ).

Not sure what you were trying to prove with this selection of statistics, but if it was to show that renewables had the highest growth rate sure.. no problems. Fully agree. Doesn't contradict anything I said, and isn't even really worthy of note. Why? Because they are increasing fast from a small base. You will note your statistics quote EJs for renewables but different units for gas, so you can't compare them in absolute terms. However, the growth in gas even in the below trend year of 2019 would come close to equaling the entire contribution from wind plus increase.. well, maybe not that large but you get the idea. Your stats note the big increase in gas for the US .. this is because the (fracking) gas fields are close to the population centers and much of the country already had pipelines. Gas has become cheap enough to push out coal, as I said. As for the increase in the likes of wind and solar, the way money is being thrown at that stuff I'm not surprised. Disappointed but hardly surprised. It has nothing to do with whether this method of generating energy is of any use of not, as I'm sure you know.  

[ronwagn + 6,290]

9 hours ago, ralfy said:

Current energy use for the global population is around 20 TW, with 71 pct earning less than $10 daily. In order to meet the basic needs of that population, it will need around 50 TW.

 

I don't understand what you are trying to say. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 6/20/2020 at 11:25 PM, Physics Prof. said:

I come here to learn about the energy business but i know way more about one thing that anyone else commenting.  I'm an astrophysics prof and i understand planetary atmospheres:  radiative equilibrium, radiation transfer, infrared trapping.  Venus absorbs LESS solar energy ( diameter is the same) that Earth because the albedo more than compensates for the closeness.   Yet the surface is 900 deg F.   The reason is all the CO2 in the atmosphere.  If you're dismissive of global warming you're just engaging in magical thinking.   Time to grow up.

 

A lot of people think they know all about global warming. The thing is that their predictions never come true. The sea level is rising so slowly that it is not affecting people enough to want to deal with it. The rich continue to invest in coastal real estate. Get in line with your theories. 

https://www.climatedepot.com/2020/06/18/new-studies-suggests-sea-levels-are-lower-today-than-they-were-even-during-the-little-ice-age/

Edited June 23, 2020 by ronwagn
added reference

[0R0 + 6,251]

On 6/20/2020 at 1:53 PM, Dan Clemmensen said:

I did not say (here) that the CO2 is a problem, although I think it is. I said that the PR guys talk about it because it makes the greenies happy that it is being reduced.  I did not mention the sulfur because I had forgotten about the scrubber retrofit problem. The utilities might have eked out a few more years on their coal dinosaurs if they did not need to retrofit scrubbers, but those old plants were already operating at lower and lower capacity because burning coal was more expensive than burning gas. They use the retrofit problem as an excuse so they can blame the government for the lost jobs, while they quietly take their increased profits to the bank.

Funny thing about sulfur emissions: they have a fairly large immediate effect of reducing global warming, because they act to seed clouds which reflect sunlight. It's a very short-term effect because the SO2 drops out within a year, at which point the CO2 that was produced at the same time as the SO2 takes over and keeps warming. Thus, a dramatic reduction in SO2 (as in the US in the 1970's) causes a spike on global warming.

I absolutely agree that the US needs to keep producing oil in the Permian for exactly the reason you mention: true energy independence. But the Permian will eventually run dry, estimated to happen between 2025 and 2030. By that time we can hope that a combination of reduced demand (due to EVs) and increasing supply diversity will have broken the OPEC cartel.

2 issues. Agree entirely about the particulate cloud. It has been keeping temperatures and ocean evaporation down. What the world lost in coal emissions when the EU and US went to clean their coal up was made up for in the last 20 years by China. Note that following their CV19 shutdown there was a wave of seasonally warm wet weather going well into May. When you look at individual weather station's temperature measurements you can see two groupings, those that were in clean air that have a flat or small temperature rise, and those that were under the industrial city particulate cloud or downwind from the city and still close to it. Those show sharp rises in temperature as the particulate (and SOX) emissions were cleaned up.

The 2025 case for running out of shale assumes that the only reserves are the proven ones, i.e. those slated for deelopment within the next 5 years. But the resource, which has not been explored thoroughly and not scheduled for production yet, has an order of magnitude more shale oil available than the proven reserve. The shale wells that have been producing can be refracked to produce on a smaller but similar scale for a second go round. So they are not depleted, just a bit more expensive to get out. It will not run out before demand for it falls.

 

[ralfy + 55]

1 hour ago, ronwagn said:

I don't understand what you are trying to say. 

I don't think natural gas will be enough to provide basic needs of the global population as the energy requirements of such will be double the current usage. That means we will have to put all available sources of energy online to meet just that.

 

[ralfy + 55]

1 hour ago, ronwagn said:

A lot of people think they know all about global warming. The thing is that their predictions never come true. The sea level is rising so slowly that it is not affecting people enough to want to deal with it. The rich continue to invest in coastal real estate. Get in line with your theories. 

The effects of global warming are multiple and explained in reports by the NAS, with over fifty positive feedback loops recorded during the last two decades. Multinational banks, insurers and companies like Lloyds of London, and even military and intelligence groups like the joint military groups lead by the DoD and the Pentagon have been issuing reports on global warming to their clients and personnel.

 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

1 minute ago, ralfy said:

I don't think natural gas will be enough to provide basic needs of the global population as the energy requirements of such will be double the current usage. That means we will have to put all available sources of energy online to meet just that.

 

There is plenty of natural gas but all sources of energy will be used unless governments get in the way of progress. I am for the best solution and I favor natural gas but dislike coal. Nuclear is also off my list because of all the pollution in mining, it is not cost competitive, no way to safely store the radioactive waste for thousands of years, etc. etc. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

1 minute ago, ralfy said:

The effects of global warming are multiple and explained in reports by the NAS, with over fifty positive feedback loops recorded during the last two decades. Multinational banks, insurers and companies like Lloyds of London, and even military and intelligence groups like the joint military groups lead by the DoD and the Pentagon have been issuing reports on global warming to their clients and personnel.

 

Ha, Ha, Ha. You are entitled to your opinion. Mine is based on the ocean levels and my other research. 

 

Global Warming AKA Climate Change 

                          ( and just plain weather)

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vHU2hHXebxpvExT7srNNnX-VM7Qn9Ak_ZmdKCIcUti8/edit

https://www.climatedepot.com/

[ronwagn + 6,290]

5 hours ago, Strangelovesurfing said:

I would add shale will just modulate output depending on oil prices, it'll never collapse like Saudi wants to happen. One of the biggest impacts shale has had on oil production is disrupting the old 'gold prospector' model of oil discovery/production. Why go spend enormous amounts of money on exploration when you already have a massive resource that can be scaled up or down depending on profitability basically at will. IMO that is the main reason exploration of new resources has almost become passé. Shale oil = RIP prospecting.

A very good point, and we have enormous amounts of natural gas and other options. All should be considered wisely. 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

1 hour ago, 0R0 said:

The 2025 case for running out of shale assumes that the only reserves are the proven ones, i.e. those slated for deelopment within the next 5 years. But the resource, which has not been explored thoroughly and not scheduled for production yet, has an order of magnitude more shale oil available than the proven reserve. The shale wells that have been producing can be refracked to produce on a smaller but similar scale for a second go round. So they are not depleted, just a bit more expensive to get out. It will not run out before demand for it falls.

 

That's good to hear in terms of keeping a cap on the oil price. As long as there is some way to make a modest profit from US production at a reasonable price, the cartel cannot screw us over. The basic equation for shale: put money in, get oil out quickly. This means any cartel price rise will cause an immediate return to completions, refracks, and drilling. This will also keep the NG price down, which will continue the deadly pressure on the coal industry.

Meanwhile, solar and wind just keep getting cheaper, and EVs keep getting better. If NG ever rises above the current giveaway prices, or if the real or perceived threat of climate change forces it, then we will move away from fossil fuels.

[NickW + 2,714]

14 hours ago, markslawson said:

Not sure what you were trying to prove with this selection of statistics, but if it was to show that renewables had the highest growth rate sure.. no problems. Fully agree. Doesn't contradict anything I said, and isn't even really worthy of note. Why? Because they are increasing fast from a small base. You will note your statistics quote EJs for renewables but different units for gas, so you can't compare them in absolute terms. However, the growth in gas even in the below trend year of 2019 would come close to equaling the entire contribution from wind plus increase.. well, maybe not that large but you get the idea. Your stats note the big increase in gas for the US .. this is because the (fracking) gas fields are close to the population centers and much of the country already had pipelines. Gas has become cheap enough to push out coal, as I said. As for the increase in the likes of wind and solar, the way money is being thrown at that stuff I'm not surprised. Disappointed but hardly surprised. It has nothing to do with whether this method of generating energy is of any use of not, as I'm sure you know.  

The review uses the standard measurement for each fuel type

• Gas - m3
• Oil - Barrels (143 litres)
• Renewables which are invariably electricity its measured in joules

You can covert all into Joules if that suits 

78 bcm3 of gas (39mj/m3)  is approx 3 EJ

900kbpd (42MJ / litre) is approx 2 EJ

In the case of gas and  particularly oil this does not take into account of losses in the refining stage. 

So the point is that renewables additions to energy supply in 2019 in absolute terms is bigger than both gas and oil. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

6 hours ago, NickW said:

The review uses the standard measurement for each fuel type

• Gas - m3
• Oil - Barrels (143 litres)
• Renewables which are invariably electricity its measured in joules

You can covert all into Joules if that suits 

78 bcm3 of gas (39mj/m3)  is approx 3 EJ

900kbpd (42MJ / litre) is approx 2 EJ

In the case of gas and  particularly oil this does not take into account of losses in the refining stage. 

So the point is that renewables additions to energy supply in 2019 in absolute terms is bigger than both gas and oil. 

But how much of it is even needed and is it the best way to go or just politically popular and supported by financial interests?

[markslawson + 1,042]

10 hours ago, NickW said:

You can covert all into Joules if that suits 

78 bcm3 of gas (39mj/m3)  is approx 3 EJ

900kbpd (42MJ / litre) is approx 2 EJ

In the case of gas and  particularly oil this does not take into account of losses in the refining stage. 

So the point is that renewables additions to energy supply in 2019 in absolute terms is bigger than both gas and oil.

Okay, rather than argue that point I'll concede, on that point at least.. congratulations you managed to win one. It still changes very little, as I'm sure you'll understand.. wind and solar have natural limits and are additions to the network. The big additions are the result of government policy, not due to any advantage they have..   anyway, thanks for that.. leave it with you.

[ralfy + 55]

23 hours ago, ronwagn said:

There is plenty of natural gas but all sources of energy will be used unless governments get in the way of progress. I am for the best solution and I favor natural gas but dislike coal. Nuclear is also off my list because of all the pollution in mining, it is not cost competitive, no way to safely store the radioactive waste for thousands of years, etc. etc. 

I don't think it can meet the energy needs I mentioned earlier, which means businesses will use every energy source available. Given that, the problem won't be governments but physical limitations.

 

[ralfy + 55]

23 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Ha, Ha, Ha. You are entitled to your opinion. Mine is based on the ocean levels and my other research. 

 

 

Global Warming AKA Climate Change 

                          ( and just plain weather)

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vHU2hHXebxpvExT7srNNnX-VM7Qn9Ak_ZmdKCIcUti8/edit

https://www.climatedepot.com/

Global warming refers to a slight increase in world surface temp. anomaly. Climate change refers to the effects of global warming. Don't confuse the two.

For studies, try the NAS final report and Berkeley Earth, which was set up to by skeptics and ended up confirming what NAS said.

 

 

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 6/21/2020 at 8:08 AM, Gerry Maddoux said:

Oh, there's a supply shock coming, Dan, no doubt about it. There has been NO exploration since 2014. The only major find has been Guyana, and it is almost too gassy to produce (the money-starved government of Guyana just throttled Exxon because of venting 9T BTU of pure methane). By the end of August, unless something happens to the contrary, U.S. oil production will be down to 6-7M bod. Russia is struggling. There is one rig running in all of Venezuela. At these prices we'll be down to 150 rigs in the entire U.S. 

Under those conditions, there is no conceivable way to avoid a supply shock, save a major resurgence of Covid-19, with associate high mortality rates. We're hearing of a drastic increase in numbers of cases, but very slow increase in deaths. Has it already picked off the most vulnerable or has it mutated to less of a killing machine? Anyway, an oil shock is coming. It will be a strong catalyst to the renewables industry. 

Gerry, here are some stats on the off-shore industry: https://www.msn.com/en-au/money/other/with-contracts-canceled-and-debts-mounting-offshore-oil-drillers-face-another-shakeout/ar-BB15Tyox?ocid=msedgntp    

As I have been trying to explain to Dan, it is not as simple as "only the lowest-cost producers will remain". Off-shore is contracting, same as Canada tar sands, US shale, AND Middle East and Russian conventional oil. No producer is immune, regardless of lifting costs, but you can bet your bottom dollar that as soon as the price hits $65, EVERY producer will be in a mad rush to cash in, and there will be another huge slump 2 years later... and another rush.... another slump... etc etc. Volatility is baked in now coz there is a massive surplus of reserves but only at 65 bucks, which is too low for the ME countries to balance their budgets. It is catch-22, the Saudis and Russians are snookered and they know it. EV's are gonna add fuel to the fire (by reducing demand for fuel), if u get my drift? The world is awash in oil, no need for another major find, perhaps ever? Would only make the competition even worse. This is how wars tend to start.

[NickW + 2,714]

11 hours ago, ronwagn said:

But how much of it is even needed and is it the best way to go or just politically popular and supported by financial interests?

Both wind and solar are reaching the point that they need little or no financial incentives. Furthermore the historical financial support for older wind turbines in the USA is time limited. I believe the production tax credit is limited to the first 10 years - thereafter they operate without any subsidy. 

[NickW + 2,714]

11 hours ago, markslawson said:

Okay, rather than argue that point I'll concede, on that point at least.. congratulations you managed to win one. It still changes very little, as I'm sure you'll understand.. wind and solar have natural limits and are additions to the network. The big additions are the result of government policy, not due to any advantage they have..   anyway, thanks for that.. leave it with you.

I agree that without some major storage break through there is a limit to what solar and wind can provide for any particular grid system but there is still plenty of mileage across the globe for wind and solar to grow. 

As regards potential output that is pretty much limitless in comparison to global consumption. 

Edited June 24, 2020 by NickW

[NickW + 2,714]

11 hours ago, ronwagn said:

But how much of it is even needed and is it the best way to go or just politically popular and supported by financial interests?

I agree if you look at that review production of gas is significantly exceeding consumption. The gas isn't currently needed. 

[NickW + 2,714]

On 6/23/2020 at 4:29 AM, ronwagn said:

A very good point, and we have enormous amounts of natural gas and other options. All should be considered wisely. 

The problem is countries which are significant importers don't want to become entirely reliant on Qatar, Russia (insert other major exporter) hence the reason for developing own resources such as solar and wind to hedge the risks here. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

9 hours ago, NickW said:

The problem is countries which are significant importers don't want to become entirely reliant on Qatar, Russia (insert other major exporter) hence the reason for developing own resources such as solar and wind to hedge the risks here. 

Any country has bioresources to use also, and need to get rid of a lot of waste somehow. So, they can reduce their dependence on imports and cut costs. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

9 hours ago, NickW said:

I agree if you look at that review production of gas is significantly exceeding consumption. The gas isn't currently needed. 

So is the production of wind turbines and solar panels. Long term cost and other factors all need to be considered.