Europe gas market -how it started how its going

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,552]

On 1/3/2022 at 11:39 PM, Boat said:

Show me the 10 year consumption energy chart. Show me Europes 10 year electricity by source. You use data for those types of questions. Get woke and check it out. Yes

Get Woke...ive have come to wokeness is a age old phenomenon.. Monkey see Monkey Do. Somethings never change. Now as to this ascension thingy...hint hint.

 

Edited January 7, 2022 by Eyes Wide Open

[Eric Gagen + 713]

5 hours ago, NickW said:

Interesting developments in the Netherlands. 

Interesting vertical and diagonal crack through a house

Extra gas extraction angers Dutch region hit by earthquakes (msn.com)

 

Also not caused by fracking.  The Groningen gas field which underlies this region has excellent reservoir characteristics, and the wells produce without fracturing treatments.  

What caused the problem is that they produced a LOT of gas from relatively shallow reservoirs, and the resultant reduced pressure and void underground is allowing it to subside.  This is a well know issue, and can be prevented in the cases where it is suspected where it might take place.

Groningen gas field is somewhat older in it's development. If it were newly found and developed, there would be water injection wells to fill/repressurize the space the gas used to occupy, which would also assist in recovery.  However Groningen development started in the late 1960's and since no subsidence had been seen (yet) up into the mid 2000's everyone assumed that it simply wouldn't be a problem.  Even when it did start for the first few years, the government and everyone else insisted that the gas production wasn't the cause - it was simply too valuable to stop without significant effects, and nobody wanted to try to fix something they were pretending wasn't happening. If water injection had started, and gas production been curtailed as soon as the first minor tremors and subsidence had been detected, there probably wouldn't have been much in the way of further earthquake issues.  Instead, they decided to stop all production and perform no replacement injection.  

 

Ironically enough,  it's nearly impossible to get this sort of subsidence based seismicity in shale oil and gas formations - the rock is generally too strong, and too deeply buried to create these sorts of surface effects, and the volume of oil and gas they contain is too low for it's removal to have major impacts.  

Edited January 8, 2022 by Eric Gagen

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

On 1/1/2022 at 8:25 PM, Eric Gagen said:

Directional drilling from central pads solves the problem.  You put large volumes of surface wells and equipment all in one spot, then drill out in all directions as needed.  
 

I grew up in Long Beach California, a densely populated urban portion of Los Angeles.  Most of the residents are unaware that it sits over the top of the 3 billion barrel Wilmington oil field, as well as parts of the Seal Beach and Torrance fields. This despite the fact that it was producing ~ 300,000 bbls a day (it’s much less now as it’s deep in decline now) If there is value in doing so, it’s surprisingly easy to hide/camouflage oil and gas equipment, and the wells are so easy to hide that you could walk past one and be unaware.  Colorado is doing similar stuff in suburban and settled rural areas. 

They do know now, it has been gerrymandered accordingly

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

On 1/2/2022 at 4:00 AM, nsdp said:

Andre, you are going to have to learn that 1/2-3/4ths of wikipedia is BS. Here is the Enviromental Impact statement for construction of the Alaska natural gas transportation system United States. Bureau of Land Management, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons. https://pgjonline.com/magazine/2013/august-2013-vol-240-no-8/features/after-40-years-north-slope-again-a-tale-of-two-projectsThe plan was to transport the natural gas co produced with the Prudhoe Bay oil field to markets  in the lower 48.  By 1981 lower 48 production was  was enough that there was no longer any possible market for the gas and the delivered cost even to Edmonton in Canada was too high. Total proven reserves are  45 trillion cubic feet of 1250 btu/mcf gas which equals 57 trillion cubic feet of dry gas or 60 trillion GJ.  that does not include  reserves tot Naval Oil reserve to the west, Seal Island to the north or  east of Prudhoe Bay to the Yukon River in Canada.   This Geologic province is expected to produce 100 trillion GJ if it becomes economic.  This qualifies(think Ghwar in Saudi Arabia. ) as what geologists call an Elephant.

US still got oil and gas. Western Europe does not.

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

On 1/2/2022 at 5:56 AM, mlisacpa said:

Putin thought Germany would not back Biden, but think again. Gazprom is $10 billion Euro in debt and needs to sell the gas pronto. US arms would have decimated Russian Tanks and so the pincer movement by Russia with China cleared to attack Taiwan has stalled with no Plan B. Biden is no Chump. He stopped Russian forces in 2015, they did not think he could do it again. No one loves Trump Putin or Xi.

Gazprom is not in debt. The NS2 pipeline was financed by European companies. The rest is outright nonsense.

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

On 1/2/2022 at 12:51 AM, ronwagn said:

The Chinese are out of the deal now. 

Should this be the case, they've got no reactor.

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

On 1/1/2022 at 10:48 PM, ronwagn said:

I meant to say it is very expensive to put in place. It is very prone to extreme cost over runs and takes forever to get all the permitting needed in western nations. The Wyoming plant under construction is of advanced design and is no exception. It is backed by Bill Gates, our federal government, and now Mitsubishi.

https://www.yahoo.com/now/japan-help-build-bill-gates-042607474.html

That stuff is so fancy-ass, I will be surprised if they get it to work

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_wave_reactor

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

On 1/4/2022 at 6:45 AM, ronwagn said:

That is the reason that they are in the position they are in, Green Dreams rushed too fast. Reality was never really respected. Green parties prevailed with misled voters. Germany is the perfect example. Merkel was of no help, she trusted Russia to play fair. She was warned by our government what could happen. It has happened. The Greens now have enough power to control what happens. No coal, no nuclear. France has become smarter than Germany and the rest of the E.U. if they go ahead with more nuclear. They can set the price for power. 

Russia is playing fair. All they have to is to certify the stupid pipeline.

[Eric Gagen + 713]

3 hours ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

That stuff is so fancy-ass, I will be surprised if they get it to work

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_wave_reactor

That's literally the plan - it's an engineering technology demonstrator.  It's not intended to be an economic source of power - it's a big expensive experiment to prove a lot of concepts.  If they are successful, they could start the design and production of the next generation of nuclear reactors which are relatively cheap to manufacture, and far more 'fail safe' than current designs.  

[Starschy + 211]

20 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Get Woke...ive have come to wokeness is a age old phenomenon.. Monkey see Monkey Do. Somethings never change. Now as to this ascension thingy...hint hint.

 

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Electricity_and_heat_statistics

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,552]

3 hours ago, Starschy said:

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Electricity_and_heat_statistics

You do understand the link personifies Monkey See Monkey Do. I personally find it odd there is no press coverage in regards to citizens protests/rioting. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

12 hours ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

Russia is playing fair. All they have to is to certify the stupid pipeline.

Russia is always tough to negotiate with. Putin is a master of it. The West must hold firm against his craftiness. Europe is awakening to that and knows that America will not do the heavy lifting by itself. We warned them against over reliance on Russian oil. Better to pay more for oil that does not weaken you against the bear. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

15 hours ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

Should this be the case, they've got no reactor.

There are better choices with no poisoned strings. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

15 hours ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

That stuff is so fancy-ass, I will be surprised if they get it to work

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_wave_reactor

It will be a learning experience. 

 

[Eric Gagen + 713]

35 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Russia is always tough to negotiate with. Putin is a master of it. The West must hold firm against his craftiness. Europe is awakening to that and knows that America will not do the heavy lifting by itself. We warned them against over reliance on Russian oil. Better to pay more for oil that does not weaken you against the bear. 

Agreed - the Russians aren’t necessarily malicious or anything - they are merely in the process of negotiating a deal that works well for them.  Unfortunately for the Western Europeans in this set of negotiations the Russians hold most of the cards.  It’s only their desire to have a long term commitment that ‘saves’ the Europeans now. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

5 minutes ago, Eric Gagen said:

Agreed - the Russians aren’t necessarily malicious or anything - they are merely in the process of negotiating a deal that works well for them.  Unfortunately for the Western Europeans in this set of negotiations the Russians hold most of the cards.  It’s only their desire to have a long term commitment that ‘saves’ the Europeans now. 

I think that they could get enough LNG from suppliers to get through this winter and use other fuels. I could be wrong, but I think it is in their long term best interests that they negotiate from strength. The European Union can certainly finance the difference for a few months. 

[Eric Gagen + 713]

19 hours ago, ronwagn said:

I think that they could get enough LNG from suppliers to get through this winter and use other fuels. I could be wrong, but I think it is in their long term best interests that they negotiate from strength. The European Union can certainly finance the difference for a few months. 

They can probably manage that,  but if they don't sign an agreement in the spring they face the same situation again next winter, but possibly in an even worse negotiating position, as natural gas storage will be even lower, or the bill for imports will be wildly high.  Western Europe simply lacks suitable energy sources.  With the exception of France, which invested heavily in nuclear power all of the rest have basically hoped that a miracle would occur and the need for energy would somehow resolve itself.  

The 'reckoning' caused by Europe running out of coal was put off by North Sea oil and gas, but only by a couple of decades, and now there are 2 recourses:  Pay Russia for fuel, and have the results show up in a major outflow of foreign exchange, or have their citizens pay for a crash investment in renewables.  Starting a few years ago,  option 2 was started up, but projections about how much it would cost, and how quickly it could be achieved were overly optimistic.  This is particularly the case because Europe is in a very poor location for solar energy, and lacks enough different climactic zones to reliably take advantage of different wind weather in different places.  Even nuclear is no longer an option, because it would take probably 15 years to build enough new plants starting now to have a significant effect on the demand for other sources of energy.  

Edited January 9, 2022 by Eric Gagen

[ronwagn + 6,290]

15 year nuclear is a very big negative for nuclear in Europe unless something changes. It sounds like it could be back to coal and all the LNG they can import. Where is all the sea and land wind power growth and other green expectations? What happened?

[Eric Gagen + 713]

3 hours ago, ronwagn said:

15 year nuclear is a very big negative for nuclear in Europe unless something changes. It sounds like it could be back to coal and all the LNG they can import. Where is all the sea and land wind power growth and other green expectations? What happened?

I would say 15 years is a best case hypothetical if space aliens zapped all the voters with brain altering waves to make nuclear power a priority with no concern for cost or any other factors - just design and construction times to get enough reactors built to make a dent. In realty nuclear plants in Europe are being shut down on average right now - not planned and opened.  
 

As for renewables construction, Its happening but not fast enough.  I don’t think they were anticipating the anti nuclear movement to be as strong as it is, (shutting down plants in Germany and Sweden) or for Groningen and North Sea gas to fall so quickly.  They can’t ‘make up the difference’ with coal.  They don’t have the plants in existence any longer to burn it in, and the coal itself has to be imported also, because there are no mines local to Europe any longer.  Their best source to import coal from is Russia, so that doesn’t get them any aid in their current predicament at all any way. 
 

Another major issue is the typical load factor on renewables in Europe.  It’s really low, even by wind and solar standards.  There simply aren’t many cheap easy to access good quality wind sites on land in Europe and offshore wind is much more expensive.  Due to its extreme northerly latitude solar is an awful fit for Europe.  They need maximum power in winter for heating at exactly the moments solar output is at a zero.  It’s the exact opposite of (for example) the US southeast or west where air conditioning and cooling are major power draws which peak with maximum solar power production.  If I had to pick the worst place in the world for solar power to be useful europe would be top of the list, at least in places with significant human populations.  This means that in order to use wind and solar power on a utility scale the typical European country has to build a LOT more gear then countries in geographically better locations.  There are a few exceptions - Spain and Portugal will probably come through fine transitioning to renewables but a lot of places in Europe are going to suffer.

Edited January 10, 2022 by Eric Gagen

[NickW + 2,714]

12 hours ago, ronwagn said:

15 year nuclear is a very big negative for nuclear in Europe unless something changes. It sounds like it could be back to coal and all the LNG they can import. Where is all the sea and land wind power growth and other green expectations? What happened?

18.5% of Europes (inc UK) electricity from wind.

Wind Power Numbers | WindEurope

For the 6 days previous to that 20%,19%, 15%, 21%, 17%, 24%

[NickW + 2,714]

On 1/9/2022 at 3:00 AM, ronwagn said:

I think that they could get enough LNG from suppliers to get through this winter and use other fuels. I could be wrong, but I think it is in their long term best interests that they negotiate from strength. The European Union can certainly finance the difference for a few months. 

In many ways I hope Europe doesn't struggle through but has numerous blackouts. This way governments wake up and don't kick the ball along to the next winter. 

European Countries really need to prioritise energy supply in terms of short, medium and long term objectives

Short term 

Convert some smaller CCGT over to using fuel distillate (mainly to diversity fuel supply) 

Extensions of coal and nuclear plant operating lives

Promote quick response energy efficiency plans - insulation, LED's etc, roof top solar and export arrangements

More electricity storage (battery storage) to prop up grid stability. Start utlising 2nd life EV  batteries

Free up more acreage for gas exploration (North Sea) 

Defer EV and heat pump plans (conv to electricity) 

Medium term

Free more acreage for offshore wind farms

Support Biogas (UK resource at about 1/6th of UK needs) 

Authorise a limited quantity of supercritical coal plant to provide baseload diversified away from gas

Retrofit Hydro to pump storage ideally connected to interconnectors to help storage surplus wind. 

Long Term

Inevitably nuclear - lots of it. 

Tidal - UK, Ireland and Norway have some superb resources. 

Bigger links to North Africa to access solar & wind in more stable countries (Morocco) 

Interconnector to Iceland to tap into their Hydro, Geothermal, wind resources. 

 

 

[Rob Plant + 2,747]

14 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Where is all the sea and land wind power growth and other green expectations? What happened?

It already has the largest offshore wind farm in the world is in the N. Sea and that is just phase 1 of 4

https://hornseaprojects.co.uk/

There are literally dozens of others already built and some in the building phase.

Floating wind is next with many historical oil + gas companies building/supplying offshore wind such as SBM offshore, Balmoral, Hywind (Equinor) etc. etc.

I expect the Eastern seaboard of the US to be a big growth sector over the coming years too.

[Rob Plant + 2,747]

11 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

I would say 15 years is a best case hypothetical if space aliens zapped all the voters with brain altering waves to make nuclear power a priority with no concern for cost or any other factors - just design and construction times to get enough reactors built to make a dent. In realty nuclear plants in Europe are being shut down on average right now - not planned and opened.  

SMR's may be a much quicker and scalable alternative to the conventional nuclear stations

[ronwagn + 6,290]

1 hour ago, Rob Plant said:

It already has the largest offshore wind farm in the world is in the N. Sea and that is just phase 1 of 4

https://hornseaprojects.co.uk/

There are literally dozens of others already built and some in the building phase.

Floating wind is next with many historical oil + gas companies building/supplying offshore wind such as SBM offshore, Balmoral, Hywind (Equinor) etc. etc.

I expect the Eastern seaboard of the US to be a big growth sector over the coming years too.

Well, not fast enough to replace fossil fuels and nuclear. The people are suffering high prices and going cold through the winter. That is partially due to a lack of wind. Over promising is bad news. 

[NickW + 2,714]

56 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Well, not fast enough to replace fossil fuels and nuclear. The people are suffering high prices and going cold through the winter. That is partially due to a lack of wind. Over promising is bad news. 

No but they buffer against the rising prices. 

Hornsea 2 is coming online right now. They hook up each section as soon as they can. I'd rather have that 1800MW of extra supply albeit intermittent than nothing at all. 

Edited January 10, 2022 by NickW