Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Main points is, if the reserves exist, they cannot be accessed without Russian help.

The authorities are lying. Again.

Europe is screwed.

1 posted on 09/21/2022 3:53:17 PM PDT by Former Proud Canadian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: JonPreston; Cathi; BobL; mac_truck; Allegra; DesertRhino; Kazan; NorseViking; cranked; ...

Fascinating.


2 posted on 09/21/2022 4:11:37 PM PDT by kiryandil (China Joe and Paycheck Hunter - the Chink in America's defenses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Former Proud Canadian
Looks like the German government officials are trying out their new pirate names:

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Germany-Seizes-Control-Of-Russian-Owned-Refinery.html

Arrrr!

3 posted on 09/21/2022 4:14:27 PM PDT by kiryandil (China Joe and Paycheck Hunter - the Chink in America's defenses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Former Proud Canadian

“Europe is screwed.”

While I agree Europe is screwed, my Russian Physics training (being that I’m a Russian agent here) doesn’t line up with the claims being made. According to my instructor at Moscow State, Professor Visconsleyokiev, drawing down from a storage tank should not, necessarily, require a constant inflow of the same element*.

*might be a translation issue there, but you get the point

But in any case, Europe simply doesn’t have enough capacity to ride out this winter - and they’ll soon discover just that.


4 posted on 09/21/2022 4:23:20 PM PDT by BobL (By the way, low tonight in Latvia: 42 degrees)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Former Proud Canadian
Europe and especially Germany are definitely screwed. My understanding is that the UK is importing roughly 10% of its projected energy needs from the us in the form of wood chips.

The irony of having to revert, not to coal, the fuel which allowed Britain to lead the industrial revolution...but to wood is really something. I mean what, we're back into the 1780's?

6 posted on 09/21/2022 4:36:31 PM PDT by Attention Surplus Disorder (Apoplectic is where we want them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Former Proud Canadian

When in doubt — consult Greta, Al Gore or Frau Merkel.

When you’re out of money ask America.


7 posted on 09/21/2022 4:45:08 PM PDT by 353FMG (Secretly practicing my Putin swagger..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Former Proud Canadian

I’m copying below a comment at the linked site refuting the silliness of this article:

“ I am an engineer, and at one point worked in the nat gas industry. There are three principal means of gas storage. The dominant one in terms of capacity is underground storage. Gas is pumped into underground cavities—these are not huge caverns, as some imagine them, but typically volumes of porous rock left over after petroleum or saline extraction—under high pressure, often 200 bar (1 bar is atmospheric pressure). When gas is re-extracted from them, all but 1 bar of pressure can be recovered, leaving only 0.5% of gas, under atmospheric pressure, in the ground. The idea of “flushing” these cavities with new gas is stark nonsense; the net result would be that you would be replacing that remaining atmospheric pressure gas with other gas, for no net gain. 99% of the gas in these cavities can be recovered, 0.5% (or more, depending on local geology) is lost to leakage within ground, and 0.5% remains at atmospheric pressure. Then if gas is available, the storage can be refilled.

The other, much smaller volume of storage is in aboveground tanks, at atmospheric pressure. These tanks have mobile roofs with liquid edge seals—lids in effect—that seal the top of the gas storage, and move down as gas is depleted. Their weight supplies some of the pressure to get the gas out, but mostly it is just pumped out with compressors (which can act as vacuum pumps quite well) and the roof follows it down. No “flushing with other gas” is done, either. These tanks have the convenience of being able to be erected anywhere regardless of local geology, and mostly serve as on-site storage for gas powerplants or gas-processing petrochemical facilities.

The third type, recently increasing, is LNG storage. These tanks are the smallest, because they must be slightly pressurized, and so their structure must be much more robust. Often, they are buried underground, but this is for better thermal insulation rather than for pressure support. The LNG tanks hold the gas in liquid form, much more condensed than even the underground 200bar facilities, but the downside is that the gas must be refrigerated to very low temperatures to remain liquid at near-atmospheric pressures. This is not like the bottled *propane* gas that can be stored liquid at room temperatures. And guess what, there is no “flushing out” with other gas going on here as well.

In conclusion, the concept of getting gas out of storage by forcing it out with the same amount of “fresh” natural gas is utter nonsense, as even a moment of considered reflection will make obvious. You could, I suppose, try to flush it out with a neutral gas like nitrogen, but what you would get out of it is a dilute mixture of methane and nitrogen, and it would make no sense economically, as nitrogen is expensive to obtain, in terms of energy—you obtain it in industrial quantities by refrigerating air until it liquefies, then distilling oxygen and nitrogen apart. You cannot flush the gas out with air, because at some point an explosive mix would be reached.”


8 posted on 09/21/2022 5:07:11 PM PDT by House Atreides (I’m now ULTRA-MAGA-PRO-MAX!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Former Proud Canadian

The power plant turbines could use liquid fuel just as airliner turbines do.

The ordinary people of the EU are getting fleeced yet again.


12 posted on 09/21/2022 5:19:36 PM PDT by Brian Griffin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Former Proud Canadian

“The Saker” ==> “Stop the Empire’s war on Russia”?

Another wacko website.


14 posted on 09/21/2022 7:01:08 PM PDT by SpeedyInTexas (The Only Good RuZZian is a Dead RuZZian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Former Proud Canadian

His whole post is based on the assumption the underground storage is not highly pressurized. It is. That whole screed is BS.


16 posted on 09/21/2022 7:37:01 PM PDT by cpdiii (CANE CUTTER-DECKHAND-ROUGHNECK-OILFIELD CONSULTANT-GEOLOGIST-PILOT-PHARMACIST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Former Proud Canadian

This author has no freaking idea what they are talking about.


17 posted on 09/21/2022 10:29:14 PM PDT by Paul R. (You know your pullets are dumb if they don't recognize a half Whopper as food!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson