| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 11/22 |
| 2005/4/20-22 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:37280 Activity:moderate |
4/20 Yay!
Consumer prices jumped 0.6 percent in March, the biggest inflation
surge in five months ... The so-called core rate of inflation rose by
a worrisome 0.4 percent in March, the largest jump in 2 1/2 years and
double what economists had expected. ... "We are getting slower growth
and higher inflation numbers. The Fed is caught," said David Wyss,
chief economist at Standard & Poor's in New York. ... Wyss predicted
that the central bank would raise rates another quarter-point when Fed
officials next meet on May 3 and probably continue with quarter-point
increases in future months.
\_ You're thinking this is a good thing?
\_ stagflation, you get what you sowed. yay! - !pp
\_ I think it is good when people have to confront the consequences
of their (bad) choices.
\_ Our choices? I think you mean, "people have to confront the
consequences of their government's bad choices." Don't know
if I see anything good about it, but it's certainly nothing
new - the fat cats screw up and the little guy gets the shaft.
\_ We get the government we deserve. Didn't people vote
the current one in office?
\_ stupid people.
\_ Neither Kerry nor Bush were willing to talk about the
impending peak in oil production and how we will have
to downscale our way of life in response to that, since
that would have been political suicide. I think the
difference is that once the SHTF (shit hits the fan)
and it becomes obvious to a large segment of the
population, Kerry would probably start some kind of
program that might actually work as opposed to Bush's
strategy of serially invading oil rich countries.
\_ You fucking crackpot. When it comes to invading
countries, Dubya is after the WMDs, not the oil.
The only problem was there weren't any WMDs. -liberal
\_ We won't have to "downscale" our way of life if
we take oil shortage as a given and try to re-engineer
our present technology. The scaling back will only
have to happen if we get cought with our pants down
on this issue. This will only happen if fuckheads
who are owned by the Saudi royal family continue to
be in control of the worlds largest energy user and
greatest scientific power.
\_ You need to do more research into how dependent
we are on oil and natural gas and how there
are no current realistic alternatives that can
provide energy, especially portable energy, on
the same scale. Just read this today:
http://csua.org/u/bsb
\_ You know, I keep hearing this, and the people
I hear this from are (surprise, surprise) oil
executives. Mind you, I own oil and natural
gas stock because it didn't take a genius
to figure this was coming. However, a country
that could fly men to the moon and back within
50 years of the invention of the airplane and
developed the first nuclear weapon in record
time would most likely be able to convert all
their existing power plants to safe nuclear
(read pebble reactors) and convert all cars
to use some sort of fuel cell in probably
10-15 years max. All it takes is the collective
will of the people and government. This whole
"we're really dependent on oil" bullshit line
has just got to stop. We need to get off our
asses, get rid of the oil barons, get rid of
the SUV morons, and get rid of the greenpeace
anti-anything-nuclear beatniks and find some
real viable solutions to our long-term
energy needs. Energy should be so inexpensive
that it is free by now. It's ludicrous that
we are still utilizing 150 year old sources
of fuel in this day and age. I mean, c'mon
we are STILL burning coal?
\_ It certainly would be technically possible
to shift the US economy to not be oil-based.
But history is littered with societies which
refused to change their practices in time
to save themselves. The US hasn't even
managed to adopt the metric system; where
would we get the will to fundamentally
change our way of life? -tom
\_ It's not a question of fundamentally
changing the lifestyle of Joe Sixpack,
it's a question of changing our scientific
research priorities, which atually happens
pretty fast. Post 911 lots of physicists
suddenly said that their research would
help detect anthrax, because that was
suddenly a very high priority as far as
fuding agents are concerned. When you
consider the relative risks from running
out of energy vs. anthrax attacks, it's
completely insane that anthrax detectors
are killer aps and energy related
research is not(as much). This is a
reflection of the morons in *charge* of
the government, not the morons who can't
figure out how to convert cm to inches.
I think it's quite concievable that
president Gore could have changed this.
Our civilization may end up collapsing
not because of some global arrogance
and shortsightedness, but rather becuase
the Republicans stole a few hundred votes
in Florida back in 2000.
\_ we're really dependent on oil" bullshit IS
NOT BULLSHIT. How the FUCK are you going
to produce your pesticides with nuclear
energy. How are you going to produce your
fertilizers with nuclear energy. How the
FUCK are you going to increase the rate of
Uranium mining by the factor of 140 we'll
need to replace everything with nukes or
build 1,000 breeder reactors, etc.
Were is all this waste going to go. Many
of the alternatives that will "last forever"
like Thorium, etc., take more energy to
refine than you get out of them, and nukes
have a very long ramp-up time. For the
next 10-20 years, LNG and coal gassification
are much more realistic but all of these
types of things will fail eventually without
a switch to renewables, a stop to eternal
growth and some downscaling of the economy.
\_ So pumping money into the economy didn't help that much, because it
just meant house prices shot up and people bought some Toyotas and
Sony televisions etc. Why can't the gov't use more targeted
benefits for US business rather than just dorking with interest
rates?
\_ Businesses want to make money, not help the country. It seems
that in the past, perhaps a majority of businesses saw that one
leads to the other, that doesn't seem like the prevalant mode
of current business thinking. |
| 11/22 |
|
| csua.org/u/bsb -> unplanning.blogspot.com/2005/04/natural-gasp-conversation-with.html A conversation with an Industry Insider Real late posting but so worth it... As a natural resource planner for a county updating its General Plan, und erstanding resource use and depletion is important to understand when fo rmulating a plan of action for the next quarter century. Getting the bes t information to present to the decision makers is tough when there is a n overload of available information out there to draw upon. So a goal of mine has been to contact individuals in various positions that may have first hand information that may shed more light on the energy situation . I had an interesting discussion with a se nior level executive of one of this countrys reputable energy firms. Bo th the executive and the firm will remain nameless for purposes of this posting. What follows is a general synopsis of key points of discussion on the subject of natural gas supply, depletion, pricing and trade. On the overall North American Natural Gas situation: When asked about the various natural gas supply and demand charts circula ting out there from various sources (such as the EIA, Matthew Simmons, C ERA, California Energy Commission, Sempra, and ASPO) that paint differin g pictures of depletion in North America, the executive confirmed that t he pessimistic projections of future gas supply were in fact the most pr obable to occur. In his professional opinion (which was backed by years of hands-on experience in the energy sector) the natural gas situation i s on the verge of significant shortfalls. Depletion is taking an increas ing toll on producers by forcing them to drill more frequently and in mo re challenging locations. New wells are producing less and depleting fas ter than ever before. Drilling activities are at all time highs with exp loration firms unable to significantly increase capacity due to acute eq uipment and labor shortages. Meanwhile depletion rates in mature regions are reaching distressing proportions. South Texas depletion rates have begun to reach levels of 14 to 15 percent. The overall Lower 48 depletion rat e is now approaching 2 percent per year, which in itself is problematic as natural gas demand has been increasing by 2 percent per year. Our executive was very familiar with the Simmons assessment of the natura l gas situation. His companys own internal projections aligned closely with the pessimistic scenarios of natural gas supplies painted by Simmon s and others. He was less than impressed with the commonly referred to a ssessment of future North American supplies depicted by the EIA however. That assessmentin his opinionrelied on ridiculously optimistic assump tions of future production that were unlikely to ever materialize. The a gencys perennially optimistic assessments largely originated out of pol itical considerations. According to the executive, they used to make mor e pessimistic assumptions until Congress cut their funding in the mid 19 90s. Since then, the EIA has sung a more upbeat tune about energy reser ves. This similar level of optimism permeates the USGS and influences so me of the consultants (that accept federal funds) as well. Natural gas prices in North America now move more or less in tandem, rega rdless of the actual location on the continent, due to the interconnecte d nature of the transcontinental pipeline network. Any increase in suppl y in one area will affect prices everywhere else. Likewise, increased co sts in one or more areas will raise overall prices. In recent years, the re has been a tremendous amount of drilling for tight gas in the Rocky M ountain region, drilling that is relatively expensive when compared to c onventional sources. Costs for tight gas and other similar sources tend run at $5-6 per MMBTU, significantly higher than the 1990s averages. According to this executive, LNG is North Americas last hope. Although n ot expressed in those words, per say, it appeared to him that perhaps it is our only hope. He is of the opinion that significant global supplies of natural gas will continue to exist for sometime to come, primarily i n Russia, Qatar and Iran. Those sources ultimately will need to be acces sed and developed. His enthusiasm for LNG was tempered however by realis tic expectations. Globally, the demand for LNG has outstripped supply ex pectations, resulting in capacity limitations at the point of liquificat ion. This demand will only increase as North American needs increase in concert with those of Asia and Europe. As more liquification facilities are constructed, the next supply constraint appears to be the vessels th emselves. A further chokepoint for this country exists with the regasifi cation plants. Over a dozen have been proposed for construction along the coast but as of thi s spring, only one, Sempras Energy Costa Azul plant has actually comple ted the permitting stage and is under construction, with a completion da te of early 2008, according to their website. The remaining LNG faciliti es still face numerous obstacles ranging from governmental permitting to local opposition groups. The plants themselves are huge undertakings, capable of supplying one to two BCFs of gas per day. Each ship actually holds on average 33 BCFs of gas, though some hold as much as 45 BCF. This translates into a ship m ooring on average, every three to four days. The unloading process takes approximately 12 or so hours (as does loading in fact), with an average voyage from the West Coast to Indonesia (the only country to have signe d a formal contract with a US firm) taking around 20-24 days. Voyages to Sakhalin could probably be made in less than 20 days and those to Austr alia, probably longer than 25 days. For the next decade, the executive expects the LNG situation to remain ve ry tight due to the capacity constraints described above, with significa nt price upside risks. Over the long haul, he expects LNG to become a do minating component of North American supply. By 2020 he believes that LN G will comprise one third of North American supply to potentially as hig h as one half of all supplies. LNG will have to grow if the US has any hope in meeting the expected d emand. LNG infras tructure is a significant investment and a study conducted a few years b ack by Exxon indicated it takes an average of 4-6 billion dollars and ma ny years of preparatory work to add one BCF of new gas capacity. In addi tion to the regasification plant siting difficulties, producing countrie s have been hesitant to allow liquification facilities to be situated or expand to meet th market forces due to either sheer greed (seeking the best possible terms) or nationalistic concerns. And as mentioned before, new tanker construction capacity will also serve to limit throughput in the system. Also not clear from this discussion is how many vessels wil l actually be required to serve the California market. If one BCF LNG te rminal requires one delivery every four days and each ship can make a ro und trip every 50 days, my calculations indicate that you would need abo ut 12 ships to service that one facility. Obviously more new terminals w ould imply more ships and therein lies the problem. According to Sempra, their ships have been secured, however this remains to be seen for the rest of the domestic demand. The number of ships required by my own esti mation to serve the anticipated 2020 demand would likely exceed the tota l number of ships in existence or contracted for at present. He, like everyone else was surprised how dramatically the supply/demand b alance for North American gas supplies shifted since 2000. No forecasts saw this happening and no economic model currently exists to predict the impacts of significantly high energy prices. Since the first price run- ups, a sizable amount of industrial gas demand has been destroyed (perma nently) in North America (eg the fertilizer industry). Future supply p roblems will likely run into more painful periods of price adjustments a s the easy demand has already been destroyed. The executive does not b elieve any true shortages (eg rationing) will ever occur in North Amer ica, unless one or more governments start setting prices. Either the pri ce ... |