Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on September 28, 2012
Natural gas wins place as oil field fuel
Warning: Trying to access array offset on false in /var/www/peakoil.com/public_html/wp-content/plugins/random-image-widget/random_image.php on line 138
Warning: Trying to access array offset on false in /var/www/peakoil.com/public_html/wp-content/plugins/random-image-widget/random_image.php on line 139
The biggest, baddest engines in the world, long chained to diesel fuel, are on the verge of a mass transformation because of cheap natural gas – with oil field equipment holding particular potential, executives said Thursday during a summit of heavy fuel users and producers.
“Here’s the first reason that large engines are going gas,” said JoelFeucht, director of gas engine strategy for Caterpillar’s energy and power systems division. “Large engines burn the most fuel. I could try to make it harder, but that’s pretty straightforward.”
Oil companies alone use nearly 1.2 billion gallons of diesel fuel a year just for pressure pumping equipment that supports hydraulic fracturing, said David Hill, vice president of natural gas economy operations for Encana Corp. Adding the diesel used to power drilling rigs themselves, the total is more than 2.8 billion gallons annually, said Pierce Dehring, a project engineer for Baker Hughes.
A single fracturing job can involve 7,800 gallons of diesel, at a cost of as much as $5 a gallon at some oil field operations, said Pat Osachuk, an engineer for Encana.
The savings of natural gas, which now is around $2 cheaper for the energy-equivalent of one gallon of diesel, inspired a wave of interest at the High Horsepower Summit 2012, a conference dedicated to natural gas use in high-horsepower applications. Hundreds of company representatives packed into conference rooms at the Royal Sonesta Hotel in Houston to hear about developing engine technology and various uses of natural gas in large engines.
Feucht said that Caterpillar, which makes large engines for oil field operations, mining trucks and other uses, is committed to being a leader in natural gas-powered products.
26 Comments on "Natural gas wins place as oil field fuel"
SOS on Fri, 28th Sep 2012 2:22 pm
Efficiency, innovation, development and adaptation. Thinking nothing will change and the trend line leads to doom if projected far enough into the future is the game of fools. This article is a small example of why many things printed or posted here are simply not accurate. Bjorn Lomborg is somebody you should be aware of. He has many smart answers for the rabble.
BillT on Fri, 28th Sep 2012 2:42 pm
EROEI … burning more and more energy to get less and less to the pump. It doesn’t matter if it is NG or burning piles of paper dollars. Energy return on energy invested is the limiting factor, even at $1,000,000 per barrel.
dsula on Fri, 28th Sep 2012 4:05 pm
BillT: EROEI is not important. As you can see cheap NG is used to extract expensive oil. Even at an energy loss it will still be done, because oil is expensive and NG is not.
autonomous on Fri, 28th Sep 2012 5:42 pm
I’m surprised it took the industry so long to utilize NG from the well site. The earliest refineries used gasoline to heat distillation towers.
Poordogabone on Fri, 28th Sep 2012 7:38 pm
dsula eroi is important, ever heard of the net energy cliff? We have to keep running faster an faster just to keep still at the present. 20 years from now we will produce more energy than ever but the useful energy available for society will be half of what it is now.
Sharpie on Fri, 28th Sep 2012 10:13 pm
Yes, NG is cheap now..until a demand spike, and until shale gas production falls off a cliff after the first year of extraction. Not long before we’re talking upwards of $13/cubic foot. Then what?
Sharpie on Fri, 28th Sep 2012 10:15 pm
* 1,000 cubic feet.
simon on Sat, 29th Sep 2012 1:08 am
Hasn’t anyone noticed the following hogwash in the 2nd to last paragraph?
“The savings of natural gas, which now is around $2 cheaper for the energy-equivalent of one gallon of diesel…”
IT.MAKES.NO.SENSE.
NG being $2 cheaper DOES NOT equate to the energy-equivalent of one gallon of diesel.
The metrics do NOT even relate.
Proper ratios would be cubic footage to gallons. Where does it even mention any such thing?
One gallon LNG equates to only 60% of the energy of a gallon of diesel.
One gallon CNG holds even less.
BillT on Sat, 29th Sep 2012 1:23 am
Notice where the article originated…OIL COUNTRY! Do you really think anything resembling reality will ever come out of Texas regarding oil? NOPE! Piles of BS to keep us believing that it will all be ok and we can keep wasting the most valuable resource on the planet.
The fact that they switched to NG does not mean anything. Energy is energy. You can use wood to pump oil, but that does not mean it will be there to pump.
Natgas on Sat, 29th Sep 2012 1:59 am
Yes Please.
USA uses only 60 billion gallons of Diesel, in that if the oil companies alone use 2.8 billion gallons, thats a lot of fuel.
Converting them to Natgas makes sense as its the lightest hydrocarbon and its worldwide reserves are much higher than oil. Also its available from Coal Bed, Agro sources, Waste, Shale rocks and Hydrates.
There are 16 million NGVs Worldwide
http://www.ngvjournal.com/en/statistics/item/911-worldwide-ngv-statistics
Mr Simon – They mentioned that natgas costs $2 less for a energy equivalent of Diesel and not per gallon. Read it again
“The savings of natural gas, which now is around $2 cheaper for the energy-equivalent of one gallon of diesel”
Natgas on Sat, 29th Sep 2012 2:52 am
There are 1107 CNG stations and 59 LNG in USA and this is increasing fast.
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/stations_counts.html
Ofcourse the EV charging stations are the fastest growing with 13000 count.
Natgas, Biofuels & Electricity are racing to get a pie in the transport fuel market.
Arthur on Sat, 29th Sep 2012 12:49 pm
I tend to believe that these shale reserves perhaps could indeed postpone the fate of industrial societies with 10-20 years. But at what cost to the soil and environment? Humanity could live for another millions of years, so why insist on continuing our unsustainable lifestyle and instead use what we have left to build a new energy base?
Kenz300 on Sat, 29th Sep 2012 2:29 pm
The high price of oil will continue to increase the interest in diversifying our energy sources and types. Oil had little competition in the past because it was cheap. That is no longer the case.
Long haul truckers are converting to LNG to save money on fuel costs. WalMart, Staples, FedEx, UPS and Waste Management are converting their fleets of vehicles to a mix of electric, flex-fuel, hybrid, CNG and LNG fuels.
The transition has begun.
SOS on Sat, 29th Sep 2012 2:46 pm
Thats correct Kenz. The savings for the energy equivalents is just too high with NG. Hormel foods is converting delivery fleets and establishing fueling stations at their hubs. Some of these may be open to the public. We will see more and more of this. Why? Because its cost effective.
Cost effectiveness is exactly the reason solar and wind have never been adopted on a large scale. They simply are not cost effective. If they were you would see the same market acceptance with them as we are seeing with NG.
NG and hydrogen are similar sources. Both are in abundance, especially hydrogen. A good use for solar/wind is direct application to spliting water for the hydrogen and oxygen. I believe that may be the future.
Arthur on Sat, 29th Sep 2012 3:02 pm
“Cost effectiveness is exactly the reason solar and wind have never been adopted on a large scale. They simply are not cost effective.”
Not true. Denmark now has 41% of it’s electricity from wind by choice and is ‘nevertheless’ one of the richests countries in Europe.
http://tinyurl.com/bwy7z7p
Denmark aims for 100% renewables and they are going to achieve it. And once the turbines are in place you can sit on your b** for the rest of your life as far as energy is concerned. These towers are for eternity, blades and generator needs to be replaced every few decades, while the shale people are poisening their groundwater and soil with fracking chemicals.
SOS on Sat, 29th Sep 2012 6:33 pm
Those wind towers require huge amounts of increasing maintenance over time. Electricity will not be free by any means and wiill take most of the revenue produced if not more to keep them running. They are building these towers at great sacrifice, but more power to them. Bjorn Lomborg is behind the effort so I support it too. I think you will find a lot of their towers at sea.
300 people were just laid off in North Dakota wind industry and thats the trend in alternatives here in the USA. Even with hjuge subsidies most if not all solindra type government investments have failed.
Arthur on Sat, 29th Sep 2012 7:40 pm
What do you mean with ‘huge’ maintenance cost?
In reality it is 1.9-2.7 euro cent per kwh produced:
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/partner/first-conferences/news/article/2010/06/true-cost-of-wind-turbine-operations-maintenance
Sharpie on Sat, 29th Sep 2012 10:55 pm
Arthur…please define “renewable” energy. Or should BillT set you straight?
Arthur on Sat, 29th Sep 2012 11:13 pm
In the case of Denmark we are talking about wind, as should be obvious from the posts. They generate 41% of all their electricity ftom wind. And that’s to fuel a modern lifestyle. In general an average western society can remain it’s character with half the amount of energy. In this sense Denmark is already autark.
Or take this Dutch guy:
http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/5151/Vincent-wil-zon/article/detail/3324173/2012/09/29/Een-heel-jaar-stroom-en-46-euro-toe.dhtml
Look at the simple installation, costed him 7000 euro, but current price is merely 5300 euro, tendency: even lower. He can feed surplus energy into the grid. Nett result: consumption equals nearly production. Earn back time: 13 years or lower if electricity prices will increase, which they probably will. Soon IKEA UK will deliver very cheap solar panels. By 2020 this setup will probably cost something like 2000 euro, a price development, exactly as was the case with personal computers.
Kenz300 on Sun, 30th Sep 2012 12:07 pm
The price of oil and nuclear keep rising and causing environmental damage. Think Chernobyl and Fukishima.
The price of wind and solar keep dropping and once installed have no annual fuel costs.
Oil, coal and nuclear need huge amounts of water to generate electricity.
Wind and solar require no water to produce electricity.
Wind and solar get cheaper every year with improvements in technology and better economies of scale.
Investments in alternative energy sources are growing around the world and are now exceeding investments in fossil fuels for energy generation.
Sharpie on Sun, 30th Sep 2012 1:54 pm
Arthur…renewables require nonrenewable fossil fuel input from start to finish.
http://sunweber.blogspot.com/2011/12/machines-making-machines-making.html
Arthur on Sun, 30th Sep 2012 3:13 pm
No you don’t. The Dutch inthe 17th century had a global empire based on windpower (mills and sails) and that was it. No fossil fuels.
http://www.placemarketing.nl/category/erfgoed/page/2/
In the future there will always be fossil fuels to maintain the renewable energy base, if necessary from biofuels. But not for cars.
Arthur on Sun, 30th Sep 2012 3:28 pm
Here is a better link:
http://www.kinderdijk.nl/
In the 17th century there were ca. two million people living in the Netherlands and a few thousand windmills, all ‘made by hand’ as Kunstler likes to put it. The bad news is: there are now 16 million people crowded together here on 40,000 km2. The good news is we have incomparable more knowledge and methods at our disposal than four centuries ago. And we have a low energy footprint mechanism at our disposal for information exchange and transaction processing, the internet. The car, the plane, the container ships are going to be the first victims of the coming fossil fuel scarcity. But wind and solar will keep the internet alive.
Arthur on Sun, 30th Sep 2012 4:23 pm
There you go… this just in:
http://cleantechnica.com/2012/09/30/new-efficiency-record-for-photovoltaic-cells-set-jump-in-efficiency-thanks-to-heterojunction-technology/
2500$ for a solar installation for a househould of four in ca. five year. All what the governments need to do in the coming years is increase tax on electricity from power stations to ‘stimulate’ private investment in this sort of equipment. This is going to be a golden business for firms that do installations of these panels. Do not become a car mechanic!
Sharpie on Mon, 1st Oct 2012 3:47 am
I’m simply not convinced that any renewables can scale up to the levels we’re counting on when oil exports and world extraction rates peter out.
Arthur on Mon, 1st Oct 2012 8:29 pm
Sharpie, maybe you do not want to believe…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baeGMF-z0fM&feature=player_embedded