Fracking pioneer Chesapeake Energy is drowning in debt

[ronwagn + 6,290]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/05/investing/chesapeake-energy-debt-going-concern-natural-gas/index.html?utm_term=link&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twbusiness&utm_content=2019-11-05T22%3A29%3A05r

Will Chesapeake go bankrupt? How would this affect the natural gas industry? What about the smaller companies? Why aren't truckers switching to natural gas trucks faster? 

https://www.lngworldnews.com/category/news-by-topic/lng-fuel/  

https://www.lngworldnews.com/category/news-by-topic/lng-fuel/  There was  a 10% increase in the United States last year but that was half of the worldwide growth. 

 

Edited November 5, 2019 by ronwagn

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

Ron, they've been teetering on the edge of bankruptcy for a decade. I suspect they'll finally have to file. But this won't do much, because when Linn Energy went bankrupt, they were running several of our wells and those were seamlessly turned over to Enervest. There's always a bunch of eager young guys willing to run with the leavings. Truckers aren't switching to NG because of two things: 1) It tacks on about $30,000 to the price of a new Cummings, and, 2) there aren't enough refueling stations along major truck routes to provide assurance of a refill. The late T. Boone Pickens spent a thousand hours of his life making ads for this, beating the bushes for this to happen, and it didn't. And that's a damn shame, because it would immediately cut down on pollution and would be ultimately cost beneficial. It will come. And I join your consternation in waiting for it, while they're talking about electric trucks and such nonsense. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

Thanks Gerry, it is great to know that someone really sees the reasons for switching to natural gas for transportation and many other uses. The cost is so low too. Anyone with a natural gas pipe can service a truck. All that is needed is a pump. They are expensive, but don't need to be. 

Here is an existing map of the CNG stations in the USA. Move around the map with your pointer. It seems adequate but inconvenient except for the Dakotas, Montana, and Wyoming. http://www.cngprices.com/station_map.php

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

I have no doubt that this conundrum took years off Boone Pickens' life. He was flummoxed why Cummings, the biggest large truck engine provider for the US, China and India, wouldn't switch to natural gas. One reason is that they can just add on a turbocharger for pennies and increase the mileage. Another was those fueling stations. They are probably spending more researching the hydrogen fuel cell than they are the NG engine. Speaking of Chesapeake, the late Aubrey McClendon was sure this was going to happen too . . . so sure that he had his truck rigged with a natural gas energy source. That's the reason that, when his vehicle burst into flames, there was a lot of wonderment. It's like this bunker fuel thing with oceangoing freighters: 3.5% sulfur, coming down to 0.5%. The overland and oceangoing shipping business are both cutthroat, dog-eat-dog businesses, and nobody's going to switch just to take the Christian way out of this. It's kind of like using propane gas, I suppose, in a rural environment. Propane just scares the heebyjeebies out of people--they think it's going to blow up because it's compressed gas. You're entirely right: we have pure, high methane, low ethane, low propane natural gas whistling out our ears, giving it away, and it could become an exceptionally cheap form of vehicular fuel for the big rigs. It displaces some space, which is another key point, but my understanding is that they're squeezing that down a lot. I get the feeling that Cummings has already researched this to death and decided to use NG for their low-level hauls in congested areas (airports, municipalities) and jump right to the hydrogen fuel cell for their next-generation fuel source. I'm with you--this makes zero sense to me.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

I posted a graph some time ago showing the relative energy densities of the various fuels. Specifically I was picking on hydrogen, but CH4 was the next lowest, for the obvious reason contained in its formula. There's a reason it's used in local transport and shunned for long haul trucking. Distance between fill ups is DRAMATICALLY lower. Truckers aren't making money when they're filling their tanks, quite the opposite in fact. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

22 hours ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

I have no doubt that this conundrum took years off Boone Pickens' life. He was flummoxed why Cummings, the biggest large truck engine provider for the US, China and India, wouldn't switch to natural gas. One reason is that they can just add on a turbocharger for pennies and increase the mileage. Another was those fueling stations. They are probably spending more researching the hydrogen fuel cell than they are the NG engine. Speaking of Chesapeake, the late Aubrey McClendon was sure this was going to happen too . . . so sure that he had his truck rigged with a natural gas energy source. That's the reason that, when his vehicle burst into flames, there was a lot of wonderment. It's like this bunker fuel thing with oceangoing freighters: 3.5% sulfur, coming down to 0.5%. The overland and oceangoing shipping business are both cutthroat, dog-eat-dog businesses, and nobody's going to switch just to take the Christian way out of this. It's kind of like using propane gas, I suppose, in a rural environment. Propane just scares the heebyjeebies out of people--they think it's going to blow up because it's compressed gas. You're entirely right: we have pure, high methane, low ethane, low propane natural gas whistling out our ears, giving it away, and it could become an exceptionally cheap form of vehicular fuel for the big rigs. It displaces some space, which is another key point, but my understanding is that they're squeezing that down a lot. I get the feeling that Cummings has already researched this to death and decided to use NG for their low-level hauls in congested areas (airports, municipalities) and jump right to the hydrogen fuel cell for their next-generation fuel source. I'm with you--this makes zero sense to me.

I am aware of the history of a lot of this since I have been trying to sell natural gas, as the bet fuel, for over eight years. Is Aubrey and Pickens were two of my heroes in the industry but  Aubrey had a tragic death, which was probably a suicide IMHO.  https://kfor.com/2016/06/08/medical-examiner-aubrey-mcclendons-death-an-accident/

I don't really think that hydrogen can compete with natural gas, and it is starting from zero. Natural gas has a huge infrastructure worldwide, the United States uses a lot, but is more interested in exporting it as LNG which demands a higher price. I hope that changes. The room for fuel can be overcome with low pressure conformable shaped tanks.Conventional tanks are now lighter and  just as safe as ever. Biogas has a cachet with the green crowd and should be viewed as equal to hydrogen since it is made from waste. 

Apparently China needs to be shamed into using a great deal more. They use more coal than all of the rest of the world combined. 

See Air Pollution Worldwide https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NwglGIAHP9lCTGgmUxz7sD5l1qUQqN3o0IwwXsqAb1U/edit

https://www.cleanenergyfuels.com/customer-solutions/heavy-duty-trucks  Fueling issues addressed. 

 

Edited November 6, 2019 by ronwagn
added reference

[ronwagn + 6,290]

2 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

I posted a graph some time ago showing the relative energy densities of the various fuels. Specifically I was picking on hydrogen, but CH4 was the next lowest, for the obvious reason contained in its formula. There's a reason it's used in local transport and shunned for long haul trucking. Distance between fill ups is DRAMATICALLY lower. Truckers aren't making money when they're filling their tanks, quite the opposite in fact. 

They could easily be paid for their fill time out of the great fuel savings and increased engine wear. They have to take mandatory breaks anyway. 

Edited November 6, 2019 by ronwagn
addition

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

2 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

I posted a graph some time ago showing the relative energy densities of the various fuels. Specifically I was picking on hydrogen, but CH4 was the next lowest, for the obvious reason contained in its formula. There's a reason it's used in local transport and shunned for long haul trucking. Distance between fill ups is DRAMATICALLY lower. Truckers aren't making money when they're filling their tanks, quite the opposite in fact. 

For those of you with limited chemistry knowledge, increasing % hydrogen content of the fuel decreases the effective energy content mostly because more H2O is produced on a molar basis.  The exhaust water must be heated up to the temperature of the flame wasting a lot of energy.  This is also why acetylene (C2H2) burns so hot despite a lower enthalpy of formation.

Low temperature fuel cells could partially get around that problem - but have their own issues.

Edited November 6, 2019 by Enthalpic

[Zhong Lu + 845]

Bullish in the long run.  Not enough to save the bulls if the winter isn't cold.  

On the other hand, winter is shaping up to be pretty damn cold.