Please support this Forum and Neven's Blog

Author Topic: Oil and Gas Issues  (Read 271779 times)

numerobis

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 270
    • View Profile
Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« Reply #1650 on: August 12, 2017, 11:04:16 PM »
EV sales are still just 1-2%. Doubling every two-three years, but from a low base. Still, BNEF is fond of reminding people that a mere 20% oversupply caused the oil price crash. That crash was from too much oil getting pumped all at once.

If/when we hit 20% EVs -- just four doublings away, so 8-12 years at the current rate -- we get the equivalent of no change in oil pumping, but demand falling off hard, which will push prices down.

Keep in mind that Libya and Syria and Iraq are likely to get a bit more stable over that period, and Iran is newly able to buy drills and pumps and sell oil on the world market. So the supply side of cheap conventional oil is looking good from the perspective of someone wanting to buy oil (bad from the perspective of the climate).

A quick little nuclear war in Korea would also reduce demand for oil by killing a few million people and utterly devastating the world economy.

So in terms of stock price of oil majors, the oil price looks likely to be low for a long time: supply looks pretty secure in the next decade or two, and demand looks like it's set to fall off pretty fast over that period. Even if the price goes up temporarily for a few years in there, the longer-term trajectory is going to keep stock prices depressed.

rboyd

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 559
    • View Profile
Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« Reply #1651 on: August 12, 2017, 11:30:55 PM »
Agreed on the long-term trend, but could be a few twists and turns in between. There is also the possibility of another financial crash, given the very high debt levels. Would be bad for oil prices but probably good for reducing emissions in the short term.

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2166
    • View Profile
Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« Reply #1652 on: August 13, 2017, 12:42:14 AM »
If/when we hit 20% EVs -- just four doublings away, so 8-12 years at the current rate

Within 12 years, probably within 8 we are likely to have full self-driving cars.  That happens and we get robotaxis which will lead to a lot of people abandoning their ICEVs. 

Low income people who are struggling to keep their junker repaired and fueled are likely to make one last drive to the crusher.  If you can ride in a nice, highly reliable car for less than you were paying for gas why screw around with a clunker?

Two or more car households who use one or more cars for nothing more than getting to work/school are likely to cut down to one reliable ICEV and phone for the rest of their needs.

Folks, like seniors, who find driving a chore are likely to phone for a ride and leave their ICEV parked "just in case".

A lot of people who reach the point of buying their first car may not.

Demand could auger in within a decade.  Could happen....

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 9356
    • View Profile
Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« Reply #1653 on: August 13, 2017, 06:10:51 PM »
Timely article from Bloomberg:

Gasoline Reaches Its Tipping Point
The fleet of electric vehicles in use worldwide is on track to displace around 100,000 barrels a day of road transport fuel this year -- most of it gasoline -- according to a report published last month by Bloomberg New Energy Finance. They expect that volume to rise to 155,000 barrels a day next year.

To be sure, that is a tiny volume compared with global gasoline consumption that was reported by BP Plc at more than 25 million barrels a day in 2016, but that misses the point. It is at the margin where the growing fleet of electric vehicles will make its presence felt.

Take Tesla Inc.'s Model 3 as an example. Once delivered, the current order book of 455,000 cars will displace some 18,000 barrels a day of gasoline demand, based on vehicle miles traveled and fuel consumption data from the U.S. Department of Transportation. That is not far off the EIA's latest forecast of U.S. gasoline demand growth in 2018 of 25,000 barrels a day. That forecast may already factor in all those new Teslas. If not, growth could be close to zero.

The tipping point is a little further away at a global level. The International Energy Agency sees gasoline demand increasing by around 240,000 barrels a day in 2018. But by the end of the decade electric vehicles could displace more than 290,000 barrels of gasoline and diesel, according to BNEF. And by 2025 year-on-year increases in the volume of fuel displaced could be enough to tip demand growth into contraction.

What happens then? Not the end of the world as we know it, for sure. But gasoline refiners should brace for profits to be steadily undermined.
https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2017-08-13/gasoline-can-reach-its-electric-car-tipping-point-by-2020
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2166
    • View Profile
Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« Reply #1654 on: August 13, 2017, 06:30:58 PM »
And by 2025 year-on-year increases in the volume of fuel displaced could be enough to tip demand growth into contraction.

That contraction could happen before 2025.

Assume fully self-driving cars before 2020 (not an unlikely development).  That happens and we immediately will see robotaxis operating in our cities.  Companies like Uber are already preparing to launch driverless taxis, Uber tried to contract for 500,000 self-driving EVs with one car manufacturer.

I think there's a significant amount of 'soft' ownership of cars.  People who struggle to keep their cars operating and fueled, people who find driving or finding parking difficult, people who don't have the finances to easily afford their first car.  Some of the cars in multiple car  households.

Once these people realize that robotaxis solve their problems and leaves them more money to spend on other things I suspect we'll see car ownership lurch downward.  And those no longer wanted cars will be ICEVs that won't be burning fuel from then on.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 9356
    • View Profile
Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« Reply #1655 on: August 15, 2017, 08:30:45 PM »
'We've Made History': Ireland Joins France, Germany and Bulgaria in Banning Fracking​
https://www.ecowatch.com/ireland-ban-fracking-2450255362.html
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

TerryM

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2020
    • View Profile
Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« Reply #1656 on: August 15, 2017, 09:51:50 PM »
'We've Made History': Ireland Joins France, Germany and Bulgaria in Banning Fracking​
https://www.ecowatch.com/ireland-ban-fracking-2450255362.html
Very good news indeed!
The next step is to ban fracked products from their nations.


IIRC the first European fracking operation was to have been the one Biden's son got involved with in the Ukraine, just after the coup. That one folded I believe.


A European ban might go a long way to preserve watersheds and the health of millions.


Terry

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 9356
    • View Profile
Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« Reply #1657 on: August 16, 2017, 11:22:03 PM »
Shell and Exxon face censure over claim gas was 'cleanest fossil fuel'
Dutch advertising watchdog’s ruling prompts company to change line to ‘least polluting fossil fuel’ as campaigners welcome action over ‘misleading’ ad
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/14/shell-and-exxon-face-censure-over-claim-gas-was-cleanest-fossil-fuel
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 9356
    • View Profile
Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« Reply #1658 on: August 18, 2017, 09:31:01 PM »
Seadrill Ltd (SDRL) Stock Isn’t Going to Make It
Despite the extensions, SDRL stock is moving ever closer to bankruptcy
Seadrill Kicks the Can

With oil hovering between $45 and $50 per barrel and the glut of crude not ending, it doesn’t make much sense for energy firms to tackle expensive deepwater projects. That’s a problem if you rent/own the high-tech equipment needed to tap the ultra-deepwater areas of the Gulf of Mexico or the North Sea. It’s particularly a major issue if you have more than $11 billion in debt.

So it shouldn’t come as a surprise that SDRL has cratered over the last two years and can now be had for less than a buck.

And it also shouldn’t come as a surprise that Seadrill is looking to restructure some of this debt to reduce that burden. While SDRL has been working hard with its creditors, Chapter 11 bankruptcy isn’t out of the question, and we supposed to hear the results of its efforts at the end of July. However, SDRL managed to kick the can on the negotiations. ...
http://investorplace.com/2017/08/seadrill-ltd-sdrl-stock-make-it/view-all/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2166
    • View Profile
Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« Reply #1659 on: August 18, 2017, 09:33:51 PM »
Seadrill Ltd (SDRL) Stock Isn’t Going to Make It
Despite the extensions, SDRL stock is moving ever closer to bankruptcy
Seadrill Kicks the Can

With oil hovering between $45 and $50 per barrel and the glut of crude not ending, it doesn’t make much sense for energy firms to tackle expensive deepwater projects. That’s a problem if you rent/own the high-tech equipment needed to tap the ultra-deepwater areas of the Gulf of Mexico or the North Sea. It’s particularly a major issue if you have more than $11 billion in debt.

So it shouldn’t come as a surprise that SDRL has cratered over the last two years and can now be had for less than a buck.

And it also shouldn’t come as a surprise that Seadrill is looking to restructure some of this debt to reduce that burden. While SDRL has been working hard with its creditors, Chapter 11 bankruptcy isn’t out of the question, and we supposed to hear the results of its efforts at the end of July. However, SDRL managed to kick the can on the negotiations. ...
http://investorplace.com/2017/08/seadrill-ltd-sdrl-stock-make-it/view-all/


Perhaps someone should take a look at their equipment and experience, buy them out at a bargain price, and start installing offshore wind.  It's looking like offshore is going to be a huge growth market.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 9356
    • View Profile
Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« Reply #1660 on: August 19, 2017, 04:35:40 PM »
Corrupt offers, or nothing?

Brazil:  Few foreign bids expected for Petrobras $1 billion natgas project
http://www.nasdaq.com/article/few-foreign-bids-expected-for-petrobras-1-bln-natgas-project-20170818-00524
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 9356
    • View Profile
Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« Reply #1661 on: August 23, 2017, 04:39:09 PM »
U.S.:  Court Rejects Pipeline Rubber-Stamp, Orders Climate Impact Review
The ruling on the Southeast Market Pipelines Project is the second federal court decision this month to conclude climate impacts must be taken into account.
An appeals court rejected federal regulators' approval of a $3.5 billion natural gas pipeline project on Tuesday over the issue of climate change.

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) failed to fully consider the impact of greenhouse gas emissions from burning the fuel that would flow through the Southeast Market Pipelines Project when the commission approved the project in 2016.

"FERC's environmental impact statement did not contain enough information on the greenhouse gas emissions that will result from burning the gas that the pipelines will carry," the judges wrote in a divided decision. "FERC must either quantify and consider the project's downstream carbon emissions or explain in more detail why it cannot do so." ...
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22082017/court-rejects-ferc-pipeline-approval-orders-climate-environment-impact-review-sabal-gas
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 9356
    • View Profile
Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« Reply #1662 on: August 24, 2017, 12:00:40 AM »
Geoffrey Supran, Naomi Oreskes:  "Erm, our paper on Exxon's climate communications put a small dent in the company's stock price. That's...a first. "
http://www.nasdaq.com/article/energy-sector-update-for-08232017-xom-cvx-cop-slb-oxy-tot-rdsa-rdsb-cm835813/amp

https://twitter.com/geoffreysupran/status/900473032212402176
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 9356
    • View Profile
Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« Reply #1663 on: August 25, 2017, 08:12:24 PM »
With a six-foot rise in water, all six of Corpus Christi's refineries would flood.
Hurricane Harvey could bring twice that.


Hurricane Harvey aims for the Texas fracking boom’s favorite port
... Part of that concern is driven by where the storm is expected to make landfall. Corpus Christi, a critical port for the Texas oil and gas industry, is also one of the most vulnerable places in America when it comes to coastal flooding. An analysis earlier this year by the South Texas Economic Development Center predicted that 92 square miles of the Corpus Christi metro area would flood with a six-foot rise in water, including all six of the city’s refineries.

Harvey could bring up to twice that, with as much as 12 feet of storm surge potentially swamping refinery infrastructure, including huge tanks of crude oil, with saltwater.

As Emily Atkin writes in the New Republic, the pollution consequences of the storm could be immense. Harvey’s floodwaters could seep into massive underground gasoline storage facilities, potentially dislodging and floating the tanks.

Above ground, the port also has the capacity to store up to 3.2 million barrels of crude oil, infrastructure which could buckle and leak during the storm. Bloomberg reported that several refineries are filling their tanks with as much oil as possible before the storm hits to try to help weigh them down.
...
http://grist.org/article/hurricane-harvey-aims-for-the-texas-fracking-booms-favorite-port/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 675
    • View Profile
Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« Reply #1664 on: August 25, 2017, 09:19:46 PM »
The people of Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, ( to a lesser extent Iran),  and how many other countries are totally dependent on oil revenue. Even at the current USD 50 bucks a barrel, Government finances are going down the tubes. Renewable energy + EVs must depress oil and gas prices in the coming years. Consequences ?
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2166
    • View Profile
Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« Reply #1665 on: August 25, 2017, 09:33:11 PM »
The people of Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, ( to a lesser extent Iran),  and how many other countries are totally dependent on oil revenue. Even at the current USD 50 bucks a barrel, Government finances are going down the tubes. Renewable energy + EVs must depress oil and gas prices in the coming years. Consequences ?

Look at Venezuela right now.

The Saudi royal family may have built up enough invested capital and military might to keep things mostly under control in SA.  But the Middle East, in general, is likely heading toward some tough times.  Loss of oil revenue along with increasing climate problems means a likelihood of much turmoil and increasing migration out.

Ecuador is another country that could take a big hit.  Or - will take a big hit.

I'm not sure the world has ever gone through the sort of economic disruption that appears to be in our near future as demand for oil crashes.  Things could happen rapidly, giving countries little time to adapt.

rboyd

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 559
    • View Profile
Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« Reply #1666 on: August 26, 2017, 03:37:30 AM »
Without oil exports, pretty much the whole of the Middle East has huge issues. Their populations have ballooned, and continue to, on the back of those oil revenues. As "we" in the importing countries will end up not caring, not needing their oil as we switch to renewables, we will view the disastrous outcome from a safe distance. Europe may have a little issue with migrants of course.

Same possibility for Venezuela, Mexico, Colombia (also big coal exporter), Ecuador, Argentina, Brazil. Then Nigeria and Angola. Kazakhstan and Russia.

Very significant geopolitical and geo-economic issues.

With respect to Colombia, may be heavily exposed to cuts in oil and coal demand:

"Colombia is South America's largest coal producer, and the region's third-largest oil producer
after Venezuela and Brazil. In 2015, Colombia was the world's fifth-largest coal exporter. The country is also a significant oil exporter, ranking as the fifth-largest crude oil exporter to the United States in 2015. A series of regulatory reforms enacted in 2003 makes the oil and natural gas sector more attractive to foreign investors led to an increase in Colombian oil and natural gas production. The Colombian government implemented a partial privatization of state oil company Ecopetrol (formerly known as Empresa Colombiana de Petróleos S.A.) in an attempt to revive its upstream oil industry."

http://www.iberglobal.com/files/2016-2/colombia_eia.pdf
« Last Edit: August 26, 2017, 03:53:49 AM by rboyd »

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2166
    • View Profile
Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« Reply #1667 on: August 26, 2017, 05:30:46 AM »
I can't think of anything as economically disruptive (outside of major wars) that equals what we may be looking at starting in a few years.

EVs and  other battery powered transportation will destroy oil demand.

Robotaxis could decimate car manufacturing.

The Hyperloop could cut air travel to half or less of what it is now.

Wind and solar are destroying the coal industry and will block almost all nuclear expansion.

Dropping storage prices will greatly decrease natural gas consumption for electricity generation.

Not all these, obviously, are guaranteed to happen but the odds seem to be growing higher.  And not all will be immediate and abrupt changes, but some may be.  Robotaxis could quickly do a smack down on both oil and car manufacturing.

It would be good if we had some governments capable of looking ahead and planning.

etienne

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 229
    • View Profile
    • About energy
Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« Reply #1668 on: August 26, 2017, 08:56:21 AM »
Well, I wouldn't be so negative. Solar jobs are already replacing coal jobs, unfortunately not at the same places, but I believe that solar workers have better conditions than coal workers. I believe that Venezuela has a lot of solar and renewable potential, just a government that didn't catch that point. There are other presidents in the Americas that didn't get how important RE are.

There have been many disruptive change in world history, petrol was one of many, so it is normal that it's replacement is also disruptive. But this is also a huge opportunity, just like computers and Internet were for Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon...

Immigration in Europe is a major issue, just like girls educations and planned parenthood should have been in the Middle East during the last 50 years. This scares me a little bit, I hope we won’t get Charlottesville’s type of event over here. Europe has much more borders with Africa and Middle-East, and it’s over the sea, so it is much more dangerous than climbing over a wall. Well, this is out of topic.

We are seeing the birth of a new world with great technical opportunities and major climatic and social chalenges, let's hope we can do the best out of it.

Adam Ash

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 254
    • View Profile
    • The 100 metre line
Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« Reply #1669 on: August 26, 2017, 01:43:10 PM »
Truly disruptive systems have two advantages over the systems they replace.  Firstly they offer a system which is able to meet a demand in a way that is better for the end user, and secondly the system offers a lower overall cost to society.

Unfortunately solar and wind do not meet either of these criteria when all benefits and costs are properly accounted for. 

They are not 'disruptive', they are merely poor less convenient replacements for existing systems. 

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 675
    • View Profile
Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« Reply #1670 on: August 26, 2017, 02:31:13 PM »
Truly disruptive systems have two advantages over the systems they replace.  Firstly they offer a system which is able to meet a demand in a way that is better for the end user, and secondly the system offers a lower overall cost to society.

Unfortunately solar and wind do not meet either of these criteria when all benefits and costs are properly accounted for. 

They are not 'disruptive', they are merely poor less convenient replacements for existing systems.
To state "they (wind, solar, EVs?) are merely poor less convenient replacements for existing systems without supporting evidence is ....?
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"

Adam Ash

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 254
    • View Profile
    • The 100 metre line
Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« Reply #1671 on: August 26, 2017, 02:41:50 PM »
...is entertaining the reasonable expectation that you will have done your research before suggesting I am wrong!  :)

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 675
    • View Profile
Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« Reply #1672 on: August 26, 2017, 03:18:56 PM »
...is entertaining the reasonable expectation that you will have done your research before suggesting I am wrong!  :)
I guess I started getting evidence in 1990 when working in the South Pacific - from deep-sea sailors who were convinced something really odd was happening to ocean currents and the trade winds. Then I read some of Hansen's stuff and as the years went by became convinced that if CO2 emissions  were not greatly reduced (and we stopped doing other long-term environmental damage for short-term gain) mankind (and most of life on earth) was in for a really bad time.

Switching from oil and gas (and coal) to renewable energy is therefore part, and only part, of a necessary transformation to avoid a large proportion of mankind not making it to the end of the century. Business-as-usual projections are pretty clear on this.

An alternative view held by some is for the rich? educated? naturally superior? to retreat to the more habitable parts of the planet and let the surplus and unnecessary masses die.

So I suppose I am suggesting you are wrong.
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"

numerobis

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 270
    • View Profile
Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« Reply #1673 on: August 26, 2017, 03:53:05 PM »
...is entertaining the reasonable expectation that you will have done your research before suggesting I am wrong!  :)

You made a claim. Back it up.

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2166
    • View Profile
Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« Reply #1674 on: August 26, 2017, 05:34:35 PM »
They are not 'disruptive', they are merely poor less convenient replacements for existing systems.

If one thing is replacing another thing the thing that is being replaced is being disrupted.

Thus your postulate falls on its posterior.

jai mitchell

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1744
    • View Profile
Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« Reply #1675 on: August 26, 2017, 05:35:13 PM »
secondly the system offers a lower overall cost to society.

Unfortunately solar and wind do not meet either of these criteria when all benefits and costs are properly accounted for. 


If you take into account the absolute dissolution of modern society that unchecked GHG emissions will produce within the next 50 years, or even more succinctly, if you take the CURRENT body of analysis for the social cost of carbon and do a cross-check of the assumptions contained within the 3 primary Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) (for more info see: http://costofcarbon.org/faq ) you will find that the actual synthesis of these models produces a final cost of carbon that is significantly greater than each individual model's outputs.

This means that your quote above, "lower cost to society" is patently false.

For integrated synthesis of the IAMs see:  https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1973864

Our reanalysis explores the effects of uncertainty about climate sensitivity, the shape of the damage function, and the discount rate. We show that the social cost of carbon is uncertain across a broad range, and could be much higher than $21. In our worst case, it could be almost $900 in 2010, rising to $1,500 in 2050.
   

Finally, the effect of shifts toward natural gas as a 'bridge fuel' has been shown to be a gross misharacterization of the near-term warming potential and, if actual warming impacts over time (as opposed to a 100-year target) are performed, the current emissions from producers of natural gas (between 6% and 14% of total produced volume) leads to actual near-term warming that is much greater than if that fuel source was coal.

see image below:
reference paper here:  http://www.fraw.org.uk/library/climate/zhang_2015.pdf

Note that the assumed fugitive methane emissions from suppliers in the paper is only 4%  The image posted below is from the supplementary information provided by the paper's authors.


Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2166
    • View Profile
Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« Reply #1676 on: August 26, 2017, 05:51:58 PM »
Truly disruptive systems have two advantages over the systems they replace.  Firstly they offer a system which is able to meet a demand in a way that is better for the end user, and secondly the system offers a lower overall cost to society.

A system that is better for the end user.

With fossil fuels we are both harming our health and wrecking our climate.  There is zero doubt that replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy is better for end users.

A lower overall cost to society.

The external costs for fossil fuels are high.  The US had been spending $140 billion to $242 billion dealing with only the health damage from coal air pollution. That does not include coal-caused water pollution nor the problems caused by vehicle pollution from burning oil.

As we are seeing those grids which add wind and solar to their grids are enjoying lower wholesale electricity prices that grids that continue to use fossil fuels.

And then there is the massive cost that we would incur were we to continue to burn large amounts of fossil fuels and produce extreme climate change.

Now, you've made up a unique definition of what makes for disruption.  But using either the standard meaning (disturbance or problems that interrupt an event, activity, or process) or the criteria you have created renewable energy is disrupting the old order.

Adam Ash

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 254
    • View Profile
    • The 100 metre line
Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« Reply #1677 on: August 27, 2017, 04:18:22 AM »
Oh how I wish there was a genuinely disruptive technology whice could be a drop in for carbon-emitting fuels.  I have a small solar setup, and my wind turbine is in the planning stage, so I am not indifferent to the useful aspects of these crafts.

But also, I try not to be blind to their difficulties if they are to be the universal panacea to assuage our climate and environmental pains.

Please explore Gail's views on the true costs of wind and solar. https://ourfiniteworld.com/2017/07/22/researchers-have-been-underestimating-the-cost-of-wind-and-solar/

Thank you too for your considered responses on this critical matter, you perspectives are much appreciated.  I have no doubt that 'renewables' can power some sort of civilisation (after all they ran ALL civilisations before we found that we could lever man and horsepower by using peat, coal then oil), but that possible world will not resemble a 'western civilsation', rather it will be closer to a remore Amazonian one, once we are thru a 'Great Dying'.

There is hope, but not for all!

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2166
    • View Profile
Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« Reply #1678 on: August 27, 2017, 05:17:59 AM »
Reading Gail can lower your IQ.  She's posted dumb for years.

I'll take one for the team and go in a little way...

"Wind and solar are not really stand-alone devices when it comes to providing the kind of electricity that is needed by the grid."

Oh, right.  Light bulbs won't light when the electrons are shoved around by wind turbines and solar panels.

"Grid operators, utilities, and backup electricity providers must provide hidden subsidies to make the system really work."

Gail apparently has not a clue that wind and solar have become two of our cheapest sources of electricity - unsubsidized.  Unsubsidized wind is the cheapest.

" My conclusion is that the problem of intermittency and the pricing distortions it causes is important, even at low grid penetrations. There may be some cases where intermittent renewables are helpful additions without buffering (especially when the current fuel is oil, and wind or solar can help reduce fuel usage), but there are likely to be many other instances where the costs involved greatly exceed the benefits gained. "

This is stupid.  Wind and solar have greatly lowered the wholesale cost of electricity in Germany and Denmark while having no impact on grid reliability.  ERCOT has had no problems integrating large amounts of wind on its grid and finds the cost very close to zero per kWh.  Current fuel is oil?  Perhaps in the Middle East.

"The “problem” is that there is a lower bound on an acceptable EROI (probably 10:1, but possibly as low as 3:1 based on the work of Charles Hall). This is somewhat equivalent to an upper bound on the affordable cost of electricity using LCOE. "

I think this is all I can take. 

ERoEI is important if we are using a finite source of energy to extract, process and distribute a finite source of energy.  It makes no sense, for example, to use more oil to obtain oil than the oil we get. 

When it comes to renewable energy ERoEI has no importance.  There's no practical limit to either sunshine or wind.  We can use as much as we want without running out.   Obviously a useful renewable energy technology has to have a positive energy payback but that's the extent of it.

Now perhaps Gail isn't aware of energy paybacks for wind and solar.  If she was then she wouldn't spend time talking about ERoEI for them. 

PV panels have an energy payback of less than 2 years for silicon and less than 1 year for thin film.

Warranties for panels generally run for 20 years.  Which doesn't tell us their expected lifetime, it's just the minimum period the seller thinks they can get away with promising.  Our oldest array is about 40 years old and going strong.  Let's use that info to estimate ERoEIs.

Silicon.  Less than 2 years and a 20 year life.  ERoEI = >10
             Less than 2 years and a 30 year life.  ERoEI = > 15

Thin film.  Less than 1 year and a 20 year life.  ERoEI = >20
                Less than 1 year and a 30 year life.  ERoEi = >30

Wind turbines pay back the cradle to grave energy in 3 to 8 months depending on the wind resources where they are installed.  Our first generation operated for 30 years before being replaced.

8 months and a 30 year life.  ERoEI = 45
3 months and a 30 year life.  ERoEI = 120

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2166
    • View Profile
Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« Reply #1679 on: August 27, 2017, 05:21:18 AM »
I have no doubt that 'renewables' can power some sort of civilisation (after all they ran ALL civilisations before we found that we could lever man and horsepower by using peat, coal then oil), but that possible world will not resemble a 'western civilsation', rather it will be closer to a remore Amazonian one, once we are thru a 'Great Dying'.

Adam, you really, really don't understand renewable energy.

We are having no trouble converting from fossil fuels to renewable energy and we are lowering the cost of electricity as we do.  There's no practical limit to the available energy from the Sun and wind.  There's no shortage of any material we need to convert solar and wind energy into electricity.

Adam Ash

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 254
    • View Profile
    • The 100 metre line
Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« Reply #1680 on: August 27, 2017, 05:30:45 AM »
(Bows respectfully and backs out of the room clutching his forelock while muttering to himself "A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still")

etienne

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 229
    • View Profile
    • About energy
Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« Reply #1681 on: August 27, 2017, 07:28:19 AM »
Well, it is not renewable energy that is disruptive for the oil industry, but a mix of electricity and efficiency. If a kWh oil costs 1, than an electricity kWh cost about 2, but a heat pump has an efficiency of about 3, so a kWh heat produced by heat pump costs about 2/3, which is lower than the 1 of the oil kWh.
Technological improvement should increase the efficiency of the heat pump, but efficiency of oil to produce heat can't be improved very much anymore. Furthermore electrical systems are usually cheaper to install, run and maintain.

Heat pumps still have efficiency issues if the temperature difference is too high between the cold and the warm side, so they can only be used efficiently in low energy houses, and they are usually combined with solar thermal for hot sanitary water. but low energy houses become a standard.

So we are at a point where electricity has better futur potential than oil.

The only thing that restraint the replacement of oil in mobile devices (EV, airplanes...) is batteries that are still heavy and expensive, but just like for the heat pump, efficiency will increase, which we can’t say of the combustion engine.

oren

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1571
    • View Profile
Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« Reply #1682 on: August 27, 2017, 12:53:06 PM »
Adding to Bob's excellent rebuttal, regarding the intermittency issue, solar+batteries and wind+batteries are also cost-competitive these days, and as battery prices are dropping I can't see why renewables+storage can't power the whole of civilization (if any is left by the time AGW has its ugly way).

Buddy

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2067
  • Go DUCKS!!
    • View Profile
Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« Reply #1683 on: August 27, 2017, 03:01:53 PM »
And to add to one of Bob Wallace's points.....the continuing drop in the cost of power as the world continues the change to renewable power has created what amounts to a tax cut to the world.  And I expect this will continue for some time.  Not only that....but ancillary costs such as the health costs of poisonous fossil fuels will be a further reduction in costs worldwide.

I'm a "fiscal conservative".....and political conservatives have lied for decades about fossil fuels being a "conservative" policy.  It is anything BUT conservative.  It was lobbyists like Stephen Moore lying to protect oil and gas companies.

« Last Edit: August 27, 2017, 04:22:22 PM by Buddy »
FOX (TASS) News....."The Trump Channel.....where truth and journalism are dead."

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 9356
    • View Profile
Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« Reply #1684 on: August 27, 2017, 04:13:25 PM »
CBS News Reported 3:31 p.m. yesterday: Hurricane Harvey shuts down one-fifth of U.S. oil production
About one-third of the America's refining capacity reside in low-lying areas on the coast from Corpus Christi, Texas, to Lake Charles, Louisiana, the Associated Press reports.

The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement said Friday that workers were evacuated from 86 of 737 manned oil production platforms where oil and gas are pumped from the Gulf of Mexico.

The agency estimated that approximately 21.55 percent of oil production had been shut down along with 23.24 percent of natural gas production.

The AP reports, citing FlightAware, that nearly 1,200 flights were cancelled on Friday and Saturday, and an additional 485 flights for Sunday were cancelled.
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

crandles

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1772
    • View Profile
Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« Reply #1685 on: August 27, 2017, 06:41:16 PM »
And to add to one of Bob Wallace's points.....the continuing drop in the cost of power as the world continues the change to renewable power has created what amounts to a tax cut to the world. 

A tax cut puts more money in people pockets, but less in government coffers.

So a drop in cost of power is rather better than 'a tax cut'. Of course, you can find effects that perhaps make it more like a tax cut. E.g. self driving cars might reduce unexpected deaths and cut inheritance tax revenues, but perhaps this seems more like further gains for people at the expense of further income inequality.

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2166
    • View Profile
Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« Reply #1686 on: August 27, 2017, 06:50:59 PM »
And to add to one of Bob Wallace's points.....the continuing drop in the cost of power as the world continues the change to renewable power has created what amounts to a tax cut to the world. 

A tax cut puts more money in people pockets, but less in government coffers.

So a drop in cost of power is rather better than 'a tax cut'. Of course, you can find effects that perhaps make it more like a tax cut. E.g. self driving cars might reduce unexpected deaths and cut inheritance tax revenues, but perhaps this seems more like further gains for people at the expense of further income inequality.

It's more of a cost of living decrease.  Freeing up money for other purposes. 

This should have the most impact on those with the lowest wealth/income.  They probably pay a larger percentage of their incomes on electricity than do the "betters".

And the drop in health care costs won't be something to sneeze at.

Buddy

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2067
  • Go DUCKS!!
    • View Profile
Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« Reply #1687 on: August 27, 2017, 07:40:09 PM »
My use of "tax cut" was more metaphorical.  It puts more money in everyone's pockets with the exception of oil and gas companies, electric utilities, and investors in both of those.  The additional cash flow is substantial.....and will be recurring.  I noted BEFORE the election that this would help whoever won the election.  When you combine transportation costs, vehicle insurance costs, healthcare costs, and residential/business energy costs.....we'll continue to see significant cash flow savings drop into their wallets in coming years.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2017, 08:40:15 PM by Buddy »
FOX (TASS) News....."The Trump Channel.....where truth and journalism are dead."

numerobis

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 270
    • View Profile
Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« Reply #1688 on: August 27, 2017, 08:36:07 PM »
Not sure what all this discussion of renewables is doing on this thread.

A fifth of US oil and nearly a quarter of its natural gas production? Wow. I didn't realize it was so concentrated. The storm does seem to be doing quite a number on gulf coast infrastructure. I wonder how much will be abandoned. With oil prices looking to stay low for a while, some of what's getting damaged might not be worth replacing.

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2166
    • View Profile
Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« Reply #1689 on: August 27, 2017, 09:02:18 PM »
Not sure what all this discussion of renewables is doing on this thread.

Possibly because renewables are replacing oil and gas....

numerobis

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 270
    • View Profile
Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« Reply #1690 on: August 27, 2017, 11:00:14 PM »
EVs are what scares oil, regardless of what powers EVs.

Batteries (for peak generation), and heat pumps and insulation (for heating) scare gas.

Renewables compete a bit with gas for the base load stuff.

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2166
    • View Profile
Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« Reply #1691 on: August 27, 2017, 11:51:39 PM »
Renewables compete a bit with gas for the base load stuff.

RE and batteries will eliminate natural gas.  Or we cook the planet.

numerobis

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 270
    • View Profile
Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« Reply #1692 on: August 28, 2017, 12:09:42 AM »
"Or we cook the planet" hasn't been sufficient incentive so far.

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2166
    • View Profile
Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« Reply #1693 on: August 28, 2017, 12:16:40 AM »
"Or we cook the planet" hasn't been sufficient incentive so far.

Correct.  Somewhat.

We've started working.  But we need to be working much harder.

Luckily some of us froggies are paying attention as the heat gets turned up.  And more are catching on.

Adam Ash

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 254
    • View Profile
    • The 100 metre line
Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« Reply #1694 on: August 28, 2017, 02:50:06 AM »
I am pleased for y'all that you are finding some peace of mind with your impression that the world can function OK with a supply of renewables which can reduce C emissions to a point where 'we will be saved' from the comeuppance arising from our rash transfer of fossilised carbon into the atmosphere.

But I am not convinced that this can be achieved at a useful scale.

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/08/nation-sized-battery/
This post demonstrates the difficulty of enabling sufficient energy storage at national scales to see effective reductions in emissions.  That is even ignoring the manufacturing effort required to build and maintain the physical lumps required to provide the storage capacity.

Doing some math on the Do the Math post shows that using all the known lead in the world a battery could be built which would provide USA only with about 3 hours storage, or the world with about 40 minutes storage.  Using all the lead there is.  And of course these batteries will have to be rebuilt every few years as - unlike wind and sunlight - batteries have a very finite life. 

Sure, add all the other types of batteries, and I doubt that the picture looks any better. 

World energy demand looks like it is continuing to rise at the moment, with renewables other than hydro producing about 7% of the total
  Coal/Peat (40.8%)
  Natural Gas (21.6%)
  Hydro (16.4%)
  Nuclear (10.6%)
  Oil (4.3%)
  Others (Renew.) (6.3%)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption

To create any effective reduction in emissions will require us to eliminate at least half of the coal/peat/natural gas/oil component which totals 66.7 %.  Lets say we need to eliminate 30%. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy
This article tells us that the poster-child renewables of wind and solar only supply about 2.2% of the total energy consumed.  So to ramp up these systems to replace 30% of the total energy production will require solar and wind to increase by 15-fold if we are to even get GHG concentrations to level off. 

An alternative reference..
https://solarthermalmagazine.com/2017/08/27/roadmap-100-renewable-energy/
..indicates that as at 2015 PV and Wind were only 0.93% of total energy production, while the 2050 target in that paper is to get these up to 95% - an increase of 102 times present installed production.  If 15-fold is impossible, what is 102-fold??

As info like the Do the Math post shows, this scale of production will hit hard resource limits quite quickly.  OK - there will be 'replacement' as one resource limit is hit we will transfer to using another.  But experience to date has shown that such alternatives are seldom cheaper or easier to use - or they would have been used first.  So as we chew through the low hanging fruit it all gets much harder.

My concern is that we are on a hiding to nothing with this effort - that chasing installation of capacity for wind and solar and all the attendant systems needed to make it a viable fit for consumption will not be able to produce a useful reduction in emissions.

We cannot realistically envisage that we will achieve a 15-fold increase in wind and solar as it chases the current increasing energy demand as well.  At a push, it would not be unrealistic to envisage a doubling, or maybe even double-doubling of installed RE capacity over the next decade or so; but not a 15-fold increase. 

Sure push on with RE development, but just don't kid yourselves or the rest of us that doubling or double-doubling RE is going to make a useful difference.

It seems to me that our best bet is simply to focus on reducing energy consumption.  Full stop.  That should be the only place we expend any resources.  We have to bring the demand curve down to the point where fossil fuel emissions leave our children with a viable future. 
 
World energy use by sector:
Sector                         Use%
Industry                           28%
Transport                           27%
Residential and service   36%
Non-energy use                     9%
This table shows where energy is used, and hence where savings must be made.

Can we do this without killing the global economy?  We have to.  Its either that or we will kill ourselves.

So there.  My conclusion is that RE is nice, but even if we double-double RE it will not be enough and besides the creation of RE systems is likely to hit hard resource limits way before it becomes significantly helpful. 

To reduce emissions to the point where a return to 250 ppm CO2 can resume, reduction in fossil fuel use by reducing demand across the board is the only viable way forward, and the only place where the limited economic, resource and human resources should be expended.

And dragging this back to the Oil and Gas issue - what this means is that we should ensure that every NegaWatt of demand destruction achieved is represented by a direct reduction in fossil fuel demand.   This will be easiest achieved in demand catchments which have the highest proportion of fossil fuel energy use. 

We can do this, but we have to make sure we are doing the things that will really matter.  Reducing demand will have a far better payback than any additional RE.  Oil and gas consumption (and coal) must decline.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2017, 04:55:37 AM by Adam Ash »

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 9356
    • View Profile
Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« Reply #1695 on: August 28, 2017, 02:51:45 AM »
Fossil fuel subsidies are a staggering $5 tn per year
A new study finds 6.5% of global GDP goes to subsidizing dirty fossil fuels
https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/aug/07/fossil-fuel-subsidies-are-a-staggering-5-tn-per-year
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2166
    • View Profile
Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« Reply #1696 on: August 28, 2017, 05:20:59 AM »
This post demonstrates the difficulty of enabling sufficient energy storage at national scales to see effective reductions in emissions. 

Adam, let me inform you about Tom Murphy.  Tom, like Gail T., and Euan Means specializes in setting up arguments to show that renewables won't work.  They pick their variables and set limits, sometimes out of thin air, and then demonstrate that we can only get our future from nuclear (Tom), or that all civilization will crash (Gail) or hell, I don't even remember Euan's agenda other than renewables won't work.

Elon Musk did a bit of interesting math recently. 

He calculated that we could run the United States on nothing but solar panels and all the panels would fit in a square 100 miles on each side.  That's 10,000 square miles out of the US's 3.797 million square miles.  0.26% of the US land area.

And we could make that solar produced electricity 24/365 reliable by using batteries that could fit in a single square mile area.  0.0.00003% of the US land area.

Now, Elon did not say we should use only solar panels and batteries.  He was just talking what could be done.  He, like pretty much everyone who understands a renewable energy grid said that we should use a mix of renewable sources.

By the way.  There is no lead in a Tesla/Panasonic battery.  And there is no shortage of any material to make the batteries we will need.  And we almost certainly will use multiple storage technologies.  We already are.

We cannot realistically envisage that we will achieve a 15-fold increase in wind and solar as it chases the current increasing energy demand as well. 

Of course we can increase wind and solar installation by 15x.  If 15x is the correct number.

Only recently did wind and solar become cheap.  Some countries haven't figured that out yet.  Many more countries are installing wind and solar on a small scale, assuring themselves that RE works and is actually affordable.  And building their wind and solar industries.  A few countries are already installing at good clips.

Over the next few years expect a rapid increase in installation rates.   

Here you can see the growth of global wind and solar installations compared to nuclear in its early years.  As you can see those are exponential curves. 


Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2166
    • View Profile
Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« Reply #1697 on: August 28, 2017, 05:32:07 AM »
A bit more about Tom.

He did a paper showing that we couldn't build enough pump-up hydro storage to meet our storage needs.  He "proved" his point by using the example of large concrete dams built in a mountain valleys and calculated a huge amount of concrete, number of valleys, etc.  Showed it to be a job too large.

In the US we have thousands of existing dams that can be converted to PuHS by installing pump/turbines and constructing a modest secondary reservoir below the dam as a catchment area.

The city of San Diego just put a call for bids within the last month to convert the San Vicente reservoir into a large PuHS facility. 

In addition to thousands of existing dams we have thousands of abandoned rock quarries, open pit mines, and subsurface dams.  We can create closed-loop PuHS about anywhere that the elevation changes over a reasonable distance.  A few hundred feet over a mile or two.  Just scoop out two holes, one high and one low, and bore a small tunnel between them.

When you set out to prove something won't work you can successfully do so if you make sure to eliminate the things that would work before you start your argument.

numerobis

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 270
    • View Profile
Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« Reply #1698 on: August 28, 2017, 02:28:10 PM »
Yay, another argument of the form "renewables can't possibly work because there just isn't enough magic pixie dust to feed all the unicorns you'd need for a 100% unicorn-rainbow-fart harnessing solution."

Last time I saw the lead one, the commenter was demanding that lead-acid batteries provide all primary energy for seven days for some reason. That after an intro arguing that remote automated weather stations have solar & battery for three days so we need to provide that on the grid.

But again, what is this doing on this thread? Discussion of renewables has its own thread; similarly with batteries.

Buddy

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2067
  • Go DUCKS!!
    • View Profile
Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« Reply #1699 on: August 28, 2017, 04:19:10 PM »
Exxon stock can't get out of its own way.  Even with gasoline futures rising....XOM is doing nothing.  Any bump up in stock prices of oil companies will continue to be sold into by investors getting out of Dodge.  Over coming months I expect $60ish to be hit.  I think the 5 year low is $57 and change...and that is a possibility.  Right now it is at $76ish..

This is going to be a LONG painful journey for XOM stockholders.
FOX (TASS) News....."The Trump Channel.....where truth and journalism are dead."