Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Who Controls Natural Gas Ports?

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Who Controls Natural Gas Ports?

Unread postby UncoveringTruths » Wed 15 Dec 2004, 17:52:07

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')emand for natural gas in the US continues to rise, far faster than North American suppliers can meet. The Census reports more than half of US homes now are gas-heated. Last week, the Energy Information Administration predicted a 3.7 percent increase for the fuel next year. To meet demand, the US will need to import more liquid natural gas (LNG).

APFC Energy, a Washington-based consulting firm, forecasts that the global oil and gas industry will spend more than $100 billion over the next decade to transport LNG around the world. At least 30 LNG terminals are in the works in the US. Currently, it has only three.

But LNG also creates environmental and aesthetic concerns about placing terminals near coastal areas - as well as fears of a terrorist attack.

Still, should the federal government be in charge simply to ensure there's enough natural gas to meet rising demand nationwide? That's what the Senate's Energy and Natural Resources committee chair, Pete Domenici, wants

More Here..
User avatar
UncoveringTruths
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 887
Joined: Thu 04 Nov 2004, 04:00:00

Unread postby TrueKaiser » Thu 16 Dec 2004, 02:32:56

i see another fed vs states fight coming up.
User avatar
TrueKaiser
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 503
Joined: Thu 28 Oct 2004, 03:00:00

Full Speed Ahead For Liquid Natural Gas Terminals

Unread postby BabyPeanut » Thu 23 Jun 2005, 08:12:47

LA TIMES
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he Senate voted Wednesday to give federal regulators authority over the location of liquefied natural gas terminals, despite objections from governors, including California's Arnold Schwarzenegger, that states should be have an equal say in deciding where such projects are built...But President Bush has pushed for federal control in deciding where terminals are built, saying that a lengthy approval process could delay the building of facilities that are important for the economy.


Dallas-Fort Worth Star Telegram
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '&')quot;We're not talking about the siting of a neighborhood ballpark or a Wal-Mart," said GOP Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, which has rejected several LNG projects. "It's a states' rights issue, plain and simple."...A report last year by the Sandia National Laboratory concluded that a terrorist attack on a tanker at an LNG terminal would start an intense fire, causing significant property damage and seriously burning people as far as a mile away.


Or just an accident for that matter, it didn't take an attack to make that BP plant in Texas blow up only months ago.
BabyPeanut
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3275
Joined: Tue 17 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: 39° 39' N 77° 77' W or thereabouts

Unread postby thor » Thu 23 Jun 2005, 09:25:11

Despite the obvious (terrorists) hazard of having some of those LNG terminals around, do you really have an alternative? Natural gas is in decline but homes need heating and electricity, and the food industry needs those darn fertilizers. Full speed ahead I guess, whatever the danger.
User avatar
thor
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 482
Joined: Tue 21 Jun 2005, 03:00:00

Unread postby BabyPeanut » Thu 23 Jun 2005, 09:33:58

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('thor', 'N')atural gas is in decline but homes need heating and electricity, and the food industry needs those darn fertilizers.

It's a losing battle because you consume energy when you liquify the gas and when you expand it again not to mention the energy used to move one of these around:

Image

One of the reasons natural gas was a win in the past was that pipelines are cheap transporation for the fuel itself.
Last edited by BabyPeanut on Thu 23 Jun 2005, 09:40:35, edited 1 time in total.
BabyPeanut
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3275
Joined: Tue 17 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: 39° 39' N 77° 77' W or thereabouts

Unread postby Leanan » Thu 23 Jun 2005, 09:37:51

The numbers are rather daunting. Last time I checked, we get something like 1% of our natural gas through those terminals. If we do an all-out push, we can maybe triple our imports in a few years...to 3%. Whoopee.
User avatar
Leanan
News Editor
News Editor
 
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu 20 May 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby BabyPeanut » Thu 23 Jun 2005, 09:39:50

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Leanan', 'T')he numbers are rather daunting. Last time I checked, we get something like 1% of our natural gas through those terminals. If we do an all-out push, we can maybe triple our imports in a few years...to 3%. Whoopee.

But that's a 300% increase :-D
BabyPeanut
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3275
Joined: Tue 17 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: 39° 39' N 77° 77' W or thereabouts
Top

Unread postby gnm » Thu 23 Jun 2005, 11:15:56

Leanan do you have a source for that? If we really can only think of getting 3% from LNG then the US will be in serious decline for NG very quickly! demand increasing and Noth American NG already in decline. I presume the North America is in decline statement by exxon included Canada. Should get real fun within 5 years or so...

8O -G
gnm
 

Unread postby BabyPeanut » Thu 23 Jun 2005, 11:24:23

You might say it's High Noon For Natural Gas
http://www.energybulletin.net/2299.html
BabyPeanut
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3275
Joined: Tue 17 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: 39° 39' N 77° 77' W or thereabouts

Unread postby Leanan » Thu 23 Jun 2005, 11:34:19

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'L')eanan do you have a source for that?


I can't remember where I saw that number; in an article about peak natural gas, I think.

However, here's a similar stat, from EEI.org:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?G55D1205B

In 2000, imports skyrocketed to 233 BCF (1.2% of consumption). The EIA predicts that that rapid increase will continue. LNG imports will grow by 8% a year, to reach 810 BCF in 2020 - about 3.5% of 2000's consumption.
User avatar
Leanan
News Editor
News Editor
 
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu 20 May 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby marek » Thu 23 Jun 2005, 13:47:09

Last year, the U.S. imported 652 bcf of LNG which was about 1.78 bcf per day. Canadian LNG imports were even less. Canadian and U.S. consumption was about 76 bcf per day. The US DOE-EIA expects LNG imports to rise to 6.8 bcf per day by 2010. That won't cover the coming shortage.
User avatar
marek
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 311
Joined: Wed 21 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Chicago, IL

Unread postby BabyPeanut » Thu 23 Jun 2005, 14:17:51

2003:

Heinburg Link

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s the natural gas in storage reaches very low levels, what happens is the pressure within storage caverns and the distribution lines begins to decrease. If the natural gas pressure levels decrease significantly, then the whole system goes down. So in order to keep that from happening, the administrators of the natural gas system systematically cut off some of their large industrial users and the industries they cut off first are the fertilizer manufacturers. Already, right now most of the fertilizer manufacturing companies in North America are sitting idle or operating at a fraction of their production capacity and this will have impact on agriculture for the coming growing season and therefore on food prices.


2005:

TV news Link

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '.')..farmers are more concerned about other rising costs such as anhydrous ammonia - a critical component to helping corn develop. For farmers with cornfields, anhydrous ammonia or another nitrogen-based fertilizer is often their biggest expense. The price has doubled in the last few years to as much as $475 per ton.
Last edited by BabyPeanut on Thu 23 Jun 2005, 14:47:42, edited 1 time in total.
BabyPeanut
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3275
Joined: Tue 17 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: 39° 39' N 77° 77' W or thereabouts
Top

Unread postby BabyPeanut » Thu 23 Jun 2005, 14:50:38

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'w')e drove them citified patriots out

Drive out the supply and insist on the product. Makes sense to me. [smilie=iamwithstupid.gif]
BabyPeanut
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3275
Joined: Tue 17 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: 39° 39' N 77° 77' W or thereabouts
Top

Unread postby RG73 » Thu 23 Jun 2005, 15:14:55

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BabyPeanut', 'I')t's a losing battle because you consume energy when you liquify the gas and when you expand it again not to mention the energy used to move one of these around:


Does anyone actually know the EROEI of this whole process--from liquifying the gas, loading it into the tanker, transporting it across the ocean, then re-expanding (do you need energy for this, or will it re-expand at room temp?)? It seems like it would be awfully expensive, especially if you add in the costs of building the terminals, and especially if it can't be scaled up to provide more than 3-4% of our natural gas needs.
User avatar
RG73
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 196
Joined: Fri 20 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Austin, Tx
Top

Unread postby MarkR » Thu 23 Jun 2005, 18:04:28

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')oes anyone actually know the EROEI of this whole process--from liquifying the gas, loading it into the tanker, transporting it across the ocean, then re-expanding (do you need energy for this, or will it re-expand at room temp?)?


My understanding is it takes about 25-30% of the energy content of the gas in order to chill and liquify it.

Shipping it uses relatively little energy (a fraction of 1%), given the enormous volume. The older tankers which are powered by the LNG itself, use very inefficient gas turbines for propulsion and to power the refrigeration. More modern designs are revisiting diesels for their higher efficiency.

Regasification does need energy but there are several ways to get it. The most expensive way is to burn the gas - in which case you need about 10% of the gas for energy. However, all you really need is heat - so if you have a fast flowing tropical ocean, that will do. Or, if you have a power station, then the LNG terminal can act as a heatsink for the powerstation instead of cooling towers - if the power plant demand is about 30-50% of the LNG terminal capacity, then this can be done with virtually no loss of energy.
MarkR
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Sun 18 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: S. Yorkshire, UK
Top

Unread postby savethehumans » Thu 23 Jun 2005, 23:56:51

Oh, boy, we're gonna build LNG terminals! Our energy problems are solved! :-D

So--how many will be built by the end of the year, when we're gonna start really needing the stuff? :)

Oh. :(

:P :P :P
User avatar
savethehumans
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1468
Joined: Wed 20 Oct 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby BabyPeanut » Fri 24 Jun 2005, 08:12:31

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'w')e'll just drop the terminal down on 39° 39' N 77° 77' E.

If you looked it up on the map you would see why this would never happen.
BabyPeanut
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3275
Joined: Tue 17 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: 39° 39' N 77° 77' W or thereabouts
Top

Next

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron