Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, ronwagn said:

While I can't fault the stuff in the article, as it mentions both gas and LNG have been tried as alternates to petrol/gas in previous decades, only for numbers to fall away. Petrol has a major, home turf advantage in that there is already massive infrastructure of refueling stations and fleets of tanker trucks refiners and so on to get the fuel to them. Before service/gas station owners set aside pumps for the alternative fuels they have to sure that there will be sufficient customers and a wholesale network in place  - that's not going to be put in place unless there are already sufficient customers. Prices may prompt owners to convert their cars to gas or LNG but then prices turn before the infrastructure is created to service these converted cars.. and they are left with a car with a severely reduced second hand value... The same problem is faced by electric cars.. basically the government has to put up for charging points and even that's creating a network in the enough cars might use it to make the network worthwhile.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, markslawson said:

While I can't fault the stuff in the article, as it mentions both gas and LNG have been tried as alternates to petrol/gas in previous decades, only for numbers to fall away. Petrol has a major, home turf advantage in that there is already massive infrastructure of refueling stations and fleets of tanker trucks refiners and so on to get the fuel to them. Before service/gas station owners set aside pumps for the alternative fuels they have to sure that there will be sufficient customers and a wholesale network in place  - that's not going to be put in place unless there are already sufficient customers. Prices may prompt owners to convert their cars to gas or LNG but then prices turn before the infrastructure is created to service these converted cars.. and they are left with a car with a severely reduced second hand value... The same problem is faced by electric cars.. basically the government has to put up for charging points and even that's creating a network in the enough cars might use it to make the network worthwhile.. 

Did you look at the map of existing stations. It covers all of the most populous areas. The only holes are in the least populous areas of the Dakotas, Montana, and Wyoming. The real problem is the high prices charged for conversions in the USA. CNG works out great in many countries. We are just very backward in this area of commerce. Low gasoline and diesel prices will inhibit growth though. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“The real problem is the high prices charged for conversions in the USA.”

Ron, in the main, I agree with the way you think re natural gas. But regarding transforming all public and private transportation to natural gas, I think you are missing one issue. The cost of conversion in the US is not the issue, the issue is simply that many of us have absolutely no interest in converting a perfectly good vehicle to natural gas...and we sure as hell don’t want the government to get involved and mandate that we do so!

  • Like 4
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Did you look at the map of existing stations. It covers all of the most populous areas. The only holes are in the least populous areas of the Dakotas, Montana, and Wyoming.

Again, while I'm sure that's all true you will find that the map means that there's a station here and there with a pump. That's nice but it does mean you have to know where to go to fill up, after going to all the trouble to convert the car, as Douglas Buckland points out, and all for a doubtful advantage that may vanish when prices change.. not matter how you cut it, gas is a marginal call at best.. If you want to use gas that's fine but its no way of the future.. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

4 hours ago, markslawson said:

Again, while I'm sure that's all true you will find that the map means that there's a station here and there with a pump. That's nice but it does mean you have to know where to go to fill up, after going to all the trouble to convert the car, as Douglas Buckland points out, and all for a doubtful advantage that may vanish when prices change.. not matter how you cut it, gas is a marginal call at best.. If you want to use gas that's fine but its no way of the future.. 

It is in many countries and there are twice as many natural gas vehicles as electric ones. I keep hearing how they are the future even though they cost more. I also continually hear about how we will supposedly run out of affordable oil although I do not believe it will happen in my lifetime. 

Take a look at the European map of CNG and LNG stations https://www.ngva.eu/stations-map/

Edited by ronwagn
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

“The real problem is the high prices charged for conversions in the USA.”

Ron, in the main, I agree with the way you think re natural gas. But regarding transforming all public and private transportation to natural gas, I think you are missing one issue. The cost of conversion in the US is not the issue, the issue is simply that many of us have absolutely no interest in converting a perfectly good vehicle to natural gas...and we sure as hell don’t want the government to get involved and mandate that we do so!

I agree that it should not be mandated but predict that when oil becomes expensive that natural gas will stay inexpensive. I may be dead, but at that time natural gas can do the job. I don't expect to see much change in this country. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, ronwagn said:

It is in many countries and there are twice as many natural gas vehicles as electric ones.

Again I have no argument with this but its not much of a comeback. Its probably true of Australia where LNG and gas conversions were a thing for a while and electric sales have been tiny, but they are rare now (a mate drives one and he regrets it). For the reasons already outlined they remain a fringe part of the car market and that's it. If you don't want to acknowledge that point, that's your problem. I have my own windmills to tilt at, so I'll leave you to yours.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 2/19/2020 at 10:05 AM, ronwagn said:

I agree that it should not be mandated but predict that when oil becomes expensive that natural gas will stay inexpensive. I may be dead, but at that time natural gas can do the job. I don't expect to see much change in this country. 

I don’t know Ron, I think people are much more supportive of say industries and fleet vehicles going to natural gas as it is cheap, we have the resource, it is clean...and it makes alot more sense from an energy density point of view. Plus no NIMBY issues as with solar or wind farms.

When it comes to personal vehicles and government intervention, you hit resistance

I say go to natural gas when and where you can! Once people see the benefits you’ll reduce resistance.

All that said, I’d still like another 5 years drilling in the oilfield!!!

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Thanks Douglas, I am aware of the growth in ships, buses, cement trucks, trash trucks, etc. It seems to be most accepted where the vehicles return for fueling at the end of the day. UPS has a large fleet also. 

Believe it or not millions were given to Texas A&M and a large pump company to develop a $500 household CNG pump. I cannot find an article so I guess I need to get on the phone. Maybe someone here is an alumni. This was about six years ago. 

The Oil Industry finds oil more profitable so we are where we are. I get the whole liquid fuel convenience issue also. Italy is leading the way in Europe though. It is setting a good example. 

Edited by ronwagn
addition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 2/19/2020 at 3:48 PM, markslawson said:

Again I have no argument with this but its not much of a comeback. Its probably true of Australia where LNG and gas conversions were a thing for a while and electric sales have been tiny, but they are rare now (a mate drives one and he regrets it). For the reasons already outlined they remain a fringe part of the car market and that's it. If you don't want to acknowledge that point, that's your problem. I have my own windmills to tilt at, so I'll leave you to yours.. 

If you want to deny reality by pointing out a single person as an example that is up to you Mark. I would prefer you keep an open mind and look at the facts. I am not tilting at windmills on natural gas use, but maybe on other things.  

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

Edited by ronwagn
added reference

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Believe it or not millions were given to Texas A&M and a large pump company to develop a $500 household CNG pump. I cannot find an article so I guess I need to get on the phone. Maybe someone here is an alumni.This was about six years ago. “

They should have given the money to a proper school, say the Colorado School of Mines...you’d have that “household CNG pump” by now!

😂😅😭

(Okay Aggies, just busting your chops a little.....)

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gentlemen 

If I may put a few things out for your perusal - should you so choose ta pah rooze - I expect that you all may be a bit surprised at just how far along, how big an impact this whole natgas situation is shaping up to be ...

Supply ... an uber KSA ... that is the unit of measurement (a Kardashian-Size Asston) of natgas that the planet has at exceptionally low cost to recover.

 

The physical issues involved (it is a gas, after all) has made its liquid cousin - oil - the predominant hydrocarbon used for energy for near a century, especially in transportation applications.

We all already know this.

 

What SHOULD kindle the interest of all forward-looking individuals is just how far along technology/commercial innovations have evolved by which the utilization of the heat energy in natgas can favorably compete with earl.

Re LNG ...

There are containers that can transport/store LNG in increasingly practical fashion such as the Tasmanian ferry that swaps out - using a forklift - 2 of the 4 onboard ISO containers that fuel the natgas ferry engine.

The Norwegians are employing a somewhat similar system with larger, onsite tanks.

 

There is actually a growing subset of marine transportation called catamaran fast ferries that have the potential to alter existing people/cargo movement in areas such as the Great Lakes due to the low price of the fuel coupled with relatively high carrying  load capacities. New, heretofore smaller markets may emerge.

When the 113C-120W railcars become more widely adopted, the Fairbanks Alaska depot will not be the only remote location to employ cheap fuel for heating, cooking, and - using an entire array of (somewhat) economical Combined Heat and Power systems (CHP), far flung, near autonomous operations will become more common.

The plans for usung smaller gas turbines in Nicaragua, El Salvador, some of the outer islands in the PI and Indonesia portend a vast expansion of economical electricity in places not now deemed practical.

All fueld by LNG in FSRU configurations of varying sizes.

 

Re CNG ...

Right now, there are several companies using "virtual pipelines' in the northeast trucking in CNG to larger, power- hungry commercial operations. These trucks use iterations of activated carbon with which more product can be loaded and transported.

 

Unquestionably, hands down, the paradigm shattering developments will involve the storage of natgas at sub 500 psi in formable tanks carried on standard cars/trucks.

Using the principal of adsorbtion - same as the virtual pipeline boys - but employing a new generation of material (latest being flexible polymers as just announced by Texas A&M fuzzyheads this past September), owners will be able to fuel up their CNG vehicles right in their driveways using residential supplied natgas.

High mileage commercial operations will lead the way.

While OEM specs run about $10,000 for the CNG package for the F-150, owners of older cars can have mechanics retroactively install the couple of hundred dollar conversion kits (available online) and - after buying/installing a new CNG tank (composite construction, by the present look of things) - Mr./Ms. Owner is on their way.

Adequate lubrication for the valves and seats is the biggest vulnerability for current ICE engines when converting to CNG (installing new valves/seats is why Ford charges so much ... to maintain warranty specs), but inexpensive additives may easily overcome this issue.

 

Realistically speaking, a decade out we may be seeing this CNG as a common type of fuel.

Countries such as Pakistan, Iran, India, et al may prove highly fertile ground for entrepreneurs seeking to adapt their vehicles to the lowest cost fuel possible.

 

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even though semi’s are not conventional fleets much of their fuel is around truck stops. Cummings has a fairly new nat gas/low emission engine out and several new electric trucks will debut over the next couple years. I think competition with diesel semi’s will happen before widespread use of cars because of infrastructure costs and battery costs. The next 5 years may decide if nat gas has a chance.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Boat said:

Even though semi’s are not conventional fleets much of their fuel is around truck stops. Cummings has a fairly new nat gas/low emission engine out and several new electric trucks will debut over the next couple years. I think competition with diesel semi’s will happen before widespread use of cars because of infrastructure costs and battery costs. The next 5 years may decide if nat gas has a chance.

I think nat gas has a good chance in industrial and commercial/fleet applications. I do not see it making much headway in personal vehicles.

Take what you can get, when you can get it!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for land transport, a 100-fold increase in the number of electric vehicles by 2040 (up to 400 million) will lead to a decrease in global oil demand by only 5%. But the possibility of such a pace of electromobilization is still in doubt: cars without ICE are still too expensive and inefficient.
OPEC, for example, is confident that automobiles will continue to play a key role in global oil demand and will consume 48.4 million barrels per day by 2040. It is obvious that the volume of production of petrochemical products will not be reduced, the raw materials for the production of which are all the same oil. But petrochemistry is the second largest consumer of black gold.
The demand for oil is determined by what products from it can be obtained and how much these products are needed on the market right now. Therefore, it would be wrong to say that a particular oil grade has a higher quality - oil with different characteristics may be required on the market at different times. Over the past decade, the value of heavy grades of oil in the market has grown, and light - decreased. The structure of oil consumption in the world is influenced by multidirectional factors. On the one hand, the number of complex refineries has increased, providing deep processing of heavy oil. At the same time, the shale revolution leads to the fact that the increase in world production is mainly due to light oil. Due to trade restrictions, a reduction in the share of heavy oil in world production and the development of domestic refining in producing countries, the supply of heavy grades decreased, which caused them to be in high demand.
In general, based on today's picture of the world, it is difficult to make assumptions that oil consumption will begin to decline in the coming decades, even if the development of renewable energy technologies goes faster than now. After all, the change of the era of coal by the era of oil has not abolished the use of obsolete fuel - its consumption has only increased. This applies even to the 21st century: global coal generation capacities grew annually until 2017, and today more than 40% of the world's electricity is produced on coal. What can we say about oil, which has a much wider scope of use.

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

ДОКЛАД ИГОРЯ СЕЧИНА [Русойл / Роснефть] на XII ЕВРАЗИЙСКОМ ЭКОНОМИЧЕСКОМ ФОРУМЕ
24 октября 2019 г., Верона, Италия
Специальная сессия: ВЫЗОВЫ ГЛОБАЛЬНОЙ ЭНЕРГЕТИЧЕСКОЙ СИСТЕМЫ
Тема доклада: ЦЕНА ОБЩЕЙ НЕУСТОЙЧИВОСТИ 2

И.Сечин: «.... Начну с фундаментальных факторов.
Долгосрочные перспективы спроса на нефть устойчивы. Хотя доля нефти в мировом энергетическом балансе, как ожидается, сократится с нынешних 34% до 30% к 2040 году, учитывая рост потребления нефти на мировом энергетическом рынке, спрос на нефть за этот период увеличится как минимум на 10%.
Учитывая дальнейшее развитие технологий на период до 2040 года, различные организации прогнозируют довольно высокий среднегодовой рост темпы потребления первичной энергии - от 0,8% (ExxonMobil) до 1,2% (ОПЕК, BP). К 2040 году глобальное потребление первичных ресурсов достигнет 340-400 млн баррелей нефтяного эквивалента в сутки.
Чтобы удовлетворить спрос на нефть, согласно текущим оценкам, к 2030 году необходимо ввести в коммерческую эксплуатацию более полутора миллиардов тонн новой добычи (это эквивалентно примерно 30 миллионам баррелей в день). Около 36% новой добычи составляет традиционная добыча нефти на суше, еще 15% - добыча нефти на шельфе, а оставшиеся 49% - добыча нефти, трудноизвлекаемой.
Рост при среднегодовом темпе прироста составит + 1,1% - + 1,8%. Прибыль Китая будет расти до 2030 года. По крайней мере до 2030 года Китай увеличил потребление и потребление жидких углеводородов, увеличив его до 700 миллионов тонн в год по сравнению с 623 миллионами тонн в 2018 году.
По нашим оценкам, доля потребления энергии в мировое потребление энергии сохраняется, и в 2040 году его доля в энергетическом балансе составляет около 20%.
Азиатско-Тихоокеанский регион. Повышение уровня жизни и увеличение численности среднего класса будет способствовать увеличению спроса на нефть в Азии на 20% или 300 млн. Тонн к 2040 году.
Более половины этого роста [159 млн. Тонн] будет приходиться на Индию , Значительно выросло потребление в других странах Азиатско-Тихоокеанского региона - Китае, Индонезии и Вьетнаме.
Азиатско-Тихоокеанский регион является основным потребителем энергоресурсов - только за последние десять лет потребление нефти выросло на четверть - до полутора миллиардов тонн. В настоящее время в регионе периодически возникают проблемы с нехваткой топлива.
Существующая инфраструктура и ресурсы для поддержки растущего аппетита. Только в Индии к 2040 году ожидается увеличение спроса на нефть в 1,6 раза по сравнению с нынешним уровнем, во Вьетнаме - в 2,5 раза.
В перспективе доля развивающихся стран в мировых энергоресурсах возрастет до 10-40%. В ближайшие годы Индия может стать мировым лидером по абсолютному использованию энергии. Примерная доля этого потребления (более 73%). ONGC Videsh, Bharat Petroresources, Индийская нефть, Нефть Индия.
Есть много факторов , в Соединенных Штатах, наиболее важным из которых является «второй революцией сланцевого ... 🤭 ».

https://www.rosneft.com/upload/site2/attach/0/88/14/pdf_24102019_eng.pdf

Edited by Andrew Neopalimy
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the PDF on  the second to last page. We are committed to the development of environmentally friendly technologies throughout the entire production chain, and one of our key priorities is to create a network of filling stations for NGVs. The use of gas as a motor fuel provides for increasing the efficiency of vehicles and significantly reducing the negative impact on the environment. As part of this initiative, Rosneft plans to expand its gas filling network in Russia....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 2/21/2020 at 2:54 AM, Andrew Neopalimy said:

As for land transport, a 100-fold increase in the number of electric vehicles by 2040 (up to 400 million) will lead to a decrease in global oil demand by only 5%. But the possibility of such a pace of electromobilization is still in doubt: cars without ICE are still too expensive and inefficient.
OPEC, for example, is confident that automobiles will continue to play a key role in global oil demand and will consume 48.4 million barrels per day by 2040. It is obvious that the volume of production of petrochemical products will not be reduced, the raw materials for the production of which are all the same oil. But petrochemistry is the second largest consumer of black gold.
The demand for oil is determined by what products from it can be obtained and how much these products are needed on the market right now. Therefore, it would be wrong to say that a particular oil grade has a higher quality - oil with different characteristics may be required on the market at different times. Over the past decade, the value of heavy grades of oil in the market has grown, and light - decreased. The structure of oil consumption in the world is influenced by multidirectional factors. On the one hand, the number of complex refineries has increased, providing deep processing of heavy oil. At the same time, the shale revolution leads to the fact that the increase in world production is mainly due to light oil. Due to trade restrictions, a reduction in the share of heavy oil in world production and the development of domestic refining in producing countries, the supply of heavy grades decreased, which caused them to be in high demand.
In general, based on today's picture of the world, it is difficult to make assumptions that oil consumption will begin to decline in the coming decades, even if the development of renewable energy technologies goes faster than now. After all, the change of the era of coal by the era of oil has not abolished the use of obsolete fuel - its consumption has only increased. This applies even to the 21st century: global coal generation capacities grew annually until 2017, and today more than 40% of the world's electricity is produced on coal. What can we say about oil, which has a much wider scope of use.

The largest petrochem oil consumption can be replaced with NG. It is so much cheaper, particularly as a byproduct of shale oil drilling and new oil fields that are very gassy.

It is actually very easy to predict that oil consumption will recede as shipping fuel and petrochem inputs switch to NG.

The oil demand will continue to come from aviation and cars, and for a while longer from trucks. But it will be displaced elsewhere by NG because it is so much cheaper. I am not sure even cheap NG will be as easy a shift in passenger cars, it is likely that EVs will do in that portion of oil demand as they pick up share, they are just so much nicer to drive. Upcoming Lucid brand high end EVs have a real life 400 mile battery.

Edited by 0R0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.