06-19-2012, 08:47 PM
|
#21
|
#1 Goaltender
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: An all-inclusive.
|
Just wait until recovering gas hydrates becomes technologically and economically viable.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Kybosh For This Useful Post:
|
|
06-19-2012, 08:50 PM
|
#22
|
Franchise Player
|
The City is actively exploring CNG and LNG for its transit fleet.
__________________
Trust the snake.
|
|
|
06-19-2012, 08:54 PM
|
#23
|
Had an idea!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC
Because our competitive advantage in oil is (I think) bigger than our competitive advantage in gas.
|
The demand for oil won't go down anytime soon. In fact it will still keep going up, and Alberta will still keep producing more and more probably for decades.
There is also a continuing need for more power, and I don't see why Alberta couldn't lead the charge and develop cheaper and more efficient methods to use NG for stuff like transportation and power generation.
|
|
|
06-19-2012, 09:11 PM
|
#24
|
Had an idea!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
Propane is a whore to find and get compared to methane. Apache just found a 48 TCF find in BC, where all of Canada had 71 prior.
It doesn't matter if we get a boatload of cars on NG, still have to try and get it off the continent....soon, before they make these ridiculous finds elsewhere in the world.
|
Didn't Apache or a different company make a big find somewhere in Europe recently? Not sure.
Either way, North America, or mainly the US is the biggest consumer in the world. Not for long, but there can be a pretty huge market here for NG.
I say if Manitoba Hydro can manage to generate hydro power and sell it to the Americans, Alberta can generate power with NG and sell it to the Americans as well.
Big, big market. Obviously it still needs work though.
|
|
|
06-19-2012, 09:22 PM
|
#25
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Oklahoma - Where they call a puck a ball...
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
Didn't Apache or a different company make a big find somewhere in Europe recently? Not sure.
Either way, North America, or mainly the US is the biggest consumer in the world. Not for long, but there can be a pretty huge market here for NG.
I say if Manitoba Hydro can manage to generate hydro power and sell it to the Americans, Alberta can generate power with NG and sell it to the Americans as well.
Big, big market. Obviously it still needs work though.
|
You do know the Americans have a huge glut go Natural gas themselves right now ... I believe Devon claims they have enough to power Oklahoma for 100 years and growing every day.
|
|
|
06-19-2012, 09:33 PM
|
#26
|
Franchise Player
|
Sasol is looking to build a facility near edmonton to make diesel from natural gas.... With a little help I think. I wonder if Redford is laying groundwork for this idea.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Bend it like Bourgeois For This Useful Post:
|
|
06-19-2012, 10:05 PM
|
#27
|
Voted for Kodos
|
Enmax is building an 800 MW Natural Gas power plant within the city limits, just south of Glenmore on 100th St SE.
800 MW is enough power to supply half of Calgary's needs.
|
|
|
06-19-2012, 10:15 PM
|
#28
|
First Line Centre
|
Considering with Shale the US has the most natural gas in the world this would hurt Alberta. India has been moving away from diesel to natural to help with their air quality issues. Iran is moving away from oil to natural gas. Natural gas is 30% cleaner than diesel and 50% cleaner than coal. Although the US hasn't had an energy policy in 40 years they have the solution to their transporation fuel issues in their own back yard. When Obama was elected he said within 10 years the US would not import oil from the middle east and the US can effectively tell them to kiss my gas. The perception is that the US gets so much oil from the middle east but it is only 10% of their imports and China is much more dependent on the middle east importing 6 to 7 times more. Not sure how quickly this will change though.......there is over 12 million vehicles in the world today burning natural gas and only 130,000 are in the US....
|
|
|
06-19-2012, 10:34 PM
|
#29
|
#1 Goaltender
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: An all-inclusive.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by macker
Considering with Shale the US has the most natural gas in the world this would hurt Alberta. India has been moving away from diesel to natural to help with their air quality issues. Iran is moving away from oil to natural gas. Natural gas is 30% cleaner than diesel and 50% cleaner than coal. Although the US hasn't had an energy policy in 40 years they have the solution to their transporation fuel issues in their own back yard. When Obama was elected he said within 10 years the US would not import oil from the middle east and the US can effectively tell them to kiss my gas. The perception is that the US gets so much oil from the middle east but it is only 10% of their imports and China is much more dependent on the middle east importing 6 to 7 times more. Not sure how quickly this will change though.......there is over 12 million vehicles in the world today burning natural gas and only 130,000 are in the US....
|
The thing that most people seem to forget is that oil is so much more than a source of energy. It is the backbone for our economy as a manufacturing feedstock in anything from plastics to pharmaceuticals to agriculture. The energy game may change, but oil will remain incredibly important and keep Canada in the forefront.
On a go forward basis, however, look for the transformation of natural gas into higher hydrocarbons to feed into the manufacturing sector.
Last edited by Kybosh; 06-19-2012 at 10:37 PM.
|
|
|
06-19-2012, 10:45 PM
|
#30
|
First Line Centre
|
^
True but 70% of the oil the US imports is to be used as a tranportational fuel and they are Alberta's biggest customer so if they change to a fuel that they actually have more of than we do it would obviously be a game changer. Solar and wind are also important now and in the future to but that will just help with power generation. The issue is transporation fuel.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to macker For This Useful Post:
|
|
06-19-2012, 10:55 PM
|
#31
|
Wucka Wocka Wacka
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: East of the Rockies, West of the Rest
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reaper
I dunno, how about using natural gas instead of coal for electricity generation? How about that one?
|
It makes sense, until the retrofit costs kick in...and what happens when NG prices rise? Would we tolerate an equal rise in our electricity costs?
It'd be a great way to get GHG emissions down though...coal fired electricity plants produce about as much Co2 in Alberta as the Oil Sands...doesn't get much press though
__________________
"WHAT HAVE WE EVER DONE TO DESERVE THIS??? WHAT IS WRONG WITH US????" -Oiler Fan
"It was a debacle of monumental proportions." -MacT
|
|
|
06-20-2012, 06:59 AM
|
#32
|
Had an idea!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by macker
^
True but 70% of the oil the US imports is to be used as a tranportational fuel and they are Alberta's biggest customer so if they change to a fuel that they actually have more of than we do it would obviously be a game changer. Solar and wind are also important now and in the future to but that will just help with power generation. The issue is transporation fuel.
|
Unless a significant breakthrough is made in the efficiency and cost of using NG for transportation, it will take a long time before it is a significant challenger to using 'oil' as the main source of transportation fuel.
|
|
|
06-20-2012, 09:44 AM
|
#33
|
My face is a bum!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by zamler
The thermal efficiency of the internal combustion engine is about as good as it gets.
|
Not really, a power plant is definitely better.
|
|
|
06-20-2012, 09:51 AM
|
#34
|
Voted for Kodos
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by hulkrogan
Not really, a power plant is definitely better.
|
To put this in perspective - the best internal combustion engines of today are FAR less efficient then even the worst coal fired power plants.
If every car on the road today instantly became an electric car, and the energy for them was generated solely by coal power plants, we'd be lowering our emissions significantly.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to You Need a Thneed For This Useful Post:
|
|
06-20-2012, 03:45 PM
|
#35
|
My face is a bum!
|
Even the crappiest electric car on the dirtiest grid contributes less carbon dioxide than a 22mpg car:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electri...rbon_emissions
Plus pollution scrubbers are better maintained on power plants, and your pollution isn't in dense populated centres.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Bill Bumface For This Useful Post:
|
|
06-20-2012, 03:56 PM
|
#36
|
Powerplay Quarterback
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacks
Sounds great until nat gas goes back up to $6. Remember when everyone wanted to convert their car to propane in the 80''s & 90's?
|
The only way natural gas will hit $6 is through inflation.
|
|
|
06-20-2012, 05:39 PM
|
#37
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful
The only way natural gas will hit $6 is through inflation.
|
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/commodity/natural-gas
It was barely less than $6 about 2 years ago and over $13 about 4 years ago. Obviously things aren't the same now but getting back to $6 wouldn't take a miracle.
|
|
|
06-20-2012, 07:29 PM
|
#38
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by hulkrogan
Not really, a power plant is definitely better.
|
You know very well I am talking about automotive applications.
|
|
|
06-20-2012, 08:05 PM
|
#39
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacks
|
It would take a time machine. Okay at least for the foreseeable future I don't envision that the price of Natural Gas is going to do anything than stagnate and rise at the same rate as inflation. There is just so much of the damn stuff well everywhere and the demand is well you see that there isn't much in the way of demand actually.
|
|
|
06-20-2012, 09:20 PM
|
#40
|
damn onions
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kybosh
Just wait until recovering gas hydrates becomes technologically and economically viable.
|
Ok I am certain I am not understanding this correctly... can you please be more specific? Because as far as I know gas liquid yields are what's driving today's deep basin economics. If you're talking about something else, I apologize but I am reading "gas hydrates" as all your "anes" (propane / butane / pentane etc etc etc) and not only are they the key to economics today they're in very high demand, only to go higher in demand if oil prices remain strong. Am I totally out to lunch on what you're referring to as gas hydrates??
Here's what's happening in oil and gas, shale gas unlocked enough gas for the rest of our lives plus our kids and their kids. Nobody in AB drills for gas, they drill for oil or for liquid yields. Liquids are then sold as a diluent to oilsands oil (mixed with crappy bitumen oil to create a higher quality synthetic oil and then subsequently marked up and sold). There isn't enough infrastructure right now for NG liquids, this is a huge problem. Depending on oil prices holding, (although I suspect it's going to continue to fall in the next couple months), NGL prices will remain strong.
Quite frankly, the conversion to NG is a very good idea for AB. Not only will it keep people employed, but it will be cleaner and AB needs the leverage as environmentalists the world around continue to piss on our province because of the oilsands and it's ridiculous terrible image.
If AB refuses to properly market the oilsands environmentally (because it can't), then you might as well offset your emissions with NG alternatives and use this insanely abundant, extremely cheap energy source.
AB has a really amazing opportunity, it should move to NG.
PS- AB also has a crap ton of gas.
Last edited by Mr.Coffee; 06-20-2012 at 09:24 PM.
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:37 PM.
|
|