Posted on 08/05/2015 5:49:29 AM PDT by thackney
‘As it stands now NG producers flare and burn off the excess; it is all wasted.’
An outright lie.
Go join the social experiment called the Democrat party.
Saudi is building up their Natural Gas production as well. I think for the next few decades, Qatar will have a large surplus to export Nat Gas to Europe.
They also have begun GTL, Nat Gas to liquids like diesel. Expensive, but for Qatar the domestic gas is cheap feedstock and the export competes with LNG.
Shell built and operates their GTL plant.
http://www.shell.com.qa/en/products-services/pearl.html
There’s plenty of US demand for domestic natural gas used in electric generation. If US natural gas is to be used for export, it’s more economic to convert it to more valuable products such as methanol, ammonia, and urea.
Our supply continues to outrun demand at global prices. The conversions are expensive and takes extremely low feedstock price. While that may exist today, I don't expect us to continue for the life of those plants.
That cuts out the absurdly large liquefaction costs inherent to exporting LNG,
Those cost of conversion exceed the cost of producing LNG.
Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Iran?
You are correct, point, EU wants off Russian Gas and get US LNG.
Some people need to get their head out of their posteriors.
From August 2014, one year ago:
> “Every day, drillers in the Bakken burn off about 350 million cubic feet of natural gas.”
http://www.cnbc.com/2014/08/22/the-rush-to-implement-north-dakotas-new-flaring-standards.html
You claimed “all is wasted”
You think a third is equal to all?
And you’ve already been shown where that is greatly diminishing.
You should read the link I gave you in post #13.
North Dakota’s plan calls for reducing flaring to 23 percent of all production by Jan. 1. That will fall to 15 percent by the beginning of 2017 and 10 percent by 2020.
> “You claimed “all is wasted”
Statistically speaking of the ‘excess’.
All the more reason to push for LNG exports which is the subject of this poor trash you’ve posted.
> “You think a third is equal to all?”
You reveal yourself as someone who just wants to argue and defend your self-appointment as the energy know-it-all.
The solutions to the NG flaring are dismal and infantile. They are not a complete solution. Exporting LNG is a much broader solution.
Regulators can grandstand all they want about flaring. They are still stupid and incompetent.
The Nat Gas in North Dakota was flared because it wasn’t economic to bring it to market. The infrastructure wasn’t in place to gather it, let alone get it out of North Dakota. If you cannot complete those steps, building LNG terminals a thousand or so miles away is not a solution.
Insults and name calling doesn’t change the facts.
By the way, do you understand that if North Dakota captured and produced 100% of the Natural Gas they bring out of the ground already, they would still be less than 2% of the US Nat Gas Production?
North Dakota just isn’t significant in the LNG export industry.
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_prod_sum_a_EPG0_FGW_mmcf_m.htm
Calling you a self-appointed energy know-it-all is not name calling, it is a factual description.
You spend far too much time arguing about trivial details without keeping the bigger picture.
LNG exports are a solution that drives the development of infrastructure. As Trump would say you make the trade deal with the foreign market, facilitate the investment and stand aside while it rolls out.
The regulators you referred to are stupid and incompetent. By mandating the gathering systems as infrastructure to reduce flaring, the gathered excess NG has nowhere to go but it must go somewhere because there is too much for regional commercial and consumer usage. This is not addressed except to say if the excess NG is not used regulators whisper a threat to shutdown producers.
The NG excess is too great for domestic utilization, hence flaring. Shutdown or export are the only other outcomes. New tech is a wildcard that is unknown in nearly all respects except in feeding back to power drilling equipment and facilities but that falls far short as a broad solution.
The economic and effective outcome is in outlets at liquefaction plants at ports. Laying NG pipeline is not a new activity and laying pipeline to such plants at ports can be done on a crash basis over a few years. As soon as the export contracts are underwritten, there will be a line of investors and plenty of contractors to lay pipe.
Have fun with your thread.
I would say you spend too much time posting false claims.
LNG exports are a solution that drives the development of infrastructure.
LNG exports is not going significantly raise the price of Natural Gas. The ND wells are primarily oil and the natural gas is a low volume byproduct.
It wasn't economic to build out those gathering system when Nat Gas prices were 2 to 3 times higher than they are today. Exporting 10% or so of our Nat Gas production isn't going to raise the price above that.
the gathered excess NG has nowhere to go but it must go somewhere because there is too much for regional commercial and consumer usage.
The US is still importing Natural Gas. It is still imported through pipelines including one running through North Dakota. If the Natural Gas produced in North Dakota was economic to gather, it would have already replaced the Gas imported via the Northern Border Pipeline. More gas is imported from Canada through North Dakota, than is vented and flared in North Dakota.
U.S. Natural Gas Pipeline Imports by Point of Entry
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_move_poe1_a_EPG0_IRP_Mmcf_m.htm The NG excess is too great for domestic utilization, hence flaring.
Another false claim. Last Month the US imported over 200 billion cubic feet of Nat Gas and the North Dakota flared ~12 bcf.
The economic and effective outcome is in outlets at liquefaction plants at ports.
It costs about $5/mmbtu to move LNG across the ocean, see charts above. Currently, that price differential is way down and not an economic driver. It will return, in time, with the future rise in oil price. But it is going to take time.
“Some people need to get their head out of their posteriors.”
And if you did get it out of your bottom, you would know this is like global warming hysteria where one believes that 100% of all climate change occurs due to burning carbon.
Look, you have no basis of saying(and I quote) “As it stands now NG producers flare and burn off the excess; it is all wasted.”
An outright lie that no one but a lib would ever dream of posting.
No one in industry disputes that some natural gas is flared. Lying about it all being flared and wasted is zero truth.
Don’t waste your valuable time trying to convince hostage.
He is wrong and likely a troller.
You do a commendable job and that is one who does not need convincing, but a lobotomy.
I write more for everyone else reading the thread.
I do not want Free Republic to be the source of false information.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.