Continue to Site

Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

  • Congratulations KootK on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

What will the price of crude bring next....shale oil? 2

Status
Not open for further replies.

jmw

Industrial
Jun 27, 2001
7,435
The EIS (Energy Information Service) advises (what we already know) that while it took a long time to break the $100 a barrel target, the £200 a barrel barrier won't be long following.

What I wonder is what new changes the rising price of crude will bring and what the critical values are.
For example, Shale oil: when does the price make it too attractive not to exploit on a major scale?

Back in 2006 when crude was $40 a barrel someone asked whether shale oil would ever be viable. ((
Shale oil is profitable in some processes at $30 a barrel. The USA has some of the largest deposits of shale oil in the Green River deposits. This means that it is increasingly attractive as a means to recover energy self-sufficiency.

The downside is environmental.

One thing I anticipate is that truth is going to take a further hit and there will be some shifts in the Environmental Propaganda war which already obscures the truth to a remarkable degree.

One might argue that there is a vested interest in energy self-sufficiency that means that the USA, for example, could find it expedient to exploit its Green River deposits.
To that end, the Anthropogenic Global Warming fanciers might find themselves a embarrassment, Al Gore could end up in Quantanamo Bay..... (I'll go along with that).

Of course, this also means putting a lot of support behind the ideas that temperatures have fallen and been falling for the last 10 years and disproving the claimed causal link between CO2 rises and a consequence temperature rise (Shale oil production releases a lot of CO2).

On the other hand, the environmental issues are a handy tool with which to attack the western economies which means that the environmentalist groups could become more obviously under the control of the anarchists.

The interesting question then isn't simply shale oil, but what are the critical price levels for other changes, innovations etc and what are those innovations or major changes we can expect?

JMW
 
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

LCruiser

Whereabouts in the world are all these people starving to death?

 
electricpete

With these technologies where there is a more or less limitless source of energy (wind, sun), I think the concept of efficiency is a bit misleading. Surely the important parameter is usable energy produced per dollar running cost (correctly calculated). For instand, a solar cell that is 24% efficient will cost roughly double what a 22% efficient cell costs, per unit area. So in a rational approach to a solar power station one would use 22% cells, given the choice of those two cells. Ultimately there will be a point where large acreages of poor quality cells are more expensive than more efficient cells. I don't know where that curve sits at the moment.

Hydrocarbons from coal is likely to get more popular. There are proposals to create 20% of Australia's diesel fuel requirement at a plant in the next five years. An argument against it is it creates 8% more CO2 per gallon of fuel delivered than digging oil out of the ground. To my mind that is not a bad tradeoff (if it matters, different thread), since the fuel alternatives for aircraft, and heavy transport and farming, have a much greater impact than that.

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIG:please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
 
Coal to fual is not just a something that is far off. The US Air Force did a test with it and it is now rated to be used on all Air Force cargo planes and they are taking bids to make a plate to make coal to fual right now. I don't thing that what they make will be able to be used in most cars.

Chris

"In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics." Homer Simpson
 
Greg - there is no doubt it is all about cost. Primarily the initial cost vs runnning cost in the case of solar, I believe. Footprint has some importance in it's own right in some settings .... you can do more on the roof of a given building (with a limited area) if you increase the efficiency (more output per area). Increasing efficiency is also expected to coincide with some of the micro technology breakthroughs that will bring down cost.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
 
One thing I have been wondering - where does the world's crude oil go? What fraction goes to:
automotive and transport fuels
electric power generation
plastics
other

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
 
Thanks LCruiser. That led me to this which seems to address the breakdown (although I'm not clear if it's US or worldwide:
Question: What are the products and uses of petroleum?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The most common products from petroleum are energy products: gasoline, heating oil, and diesel fuel. Other petroleum products are: ink, crayons, bubble gum, dishwashing liquids, deodorant, eyeglasses, records, tires, ammonia, and heart valves.

A barrel of oil yields these refined products (percent of barrel):

47% gasoline for use in automobiles
23% heating oil and diesel fuel
18% other products, which includes petrochemical feedstock—products derived from petroleum principally for the manufacturing of chemicals, synthetic rubber and plastics
10% jet fuel
4% propane
3% asphalt
(Percentages equal more than 100 because of an approximately 5% processing gain from refining.)
So almost half for automobiles. Oil-burning electricity plants I assume must be buried somewhere inside that 23% heating oil. I guess those are a relatively small portion of total electricity generation, compared to coal, gas and nuclear.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
 
So it appears at present, relatively little of crude oil supply is used for generating electricity. Increase in alternative electric supplies (wind, solar, nuclear) wouldn't help the crude oil crunch unless we figure out ways to use that energy towards transportation, right? Or is there some other link between crude oil and electricity that I'm missing ? (I'm sure there is).

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
 
Energy sources can be used for different things, so crude doesn't have to equal electricity. More crude, lower gasoline prices, more engines running on gasoline, leaving more natural gas for electricity production.
 
But natural gas is a different commodity than oil and gasoline, isn't it?. Using natural gas for electricy production doesn't take away any fuel from vehicles since natural gas isn't used on vehicles.

I guess heating is one area where some people have a direct choice of oil (heating oil) vs electricity. Among cars, there are the very small number of electric cars here today with probably increase in the future. And discussion of hydrogen in the distant future which might be produced from nuclear or electricity. But at present, I don't understand the big link between electricity market and oil / gasoline market.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
 
The EIA says that if there is such a thing as a "typical barrel" of crude then it has about 5.9 MMBTU (million BTU) of heating value.

Pipeline quality gas is almost all .990-1.0 MMBTU/MCF.

So when gas sells for $12/MMBTU (this month's opening price at Henry Hub) then you can get the same heating value as a barrel of crude for about $72. Since natural gas is a fairly crappy motor fuel, I guess a 40-60% price penalty makes sense.

Consequently those industries that are "fuel switchable" get nearly twice the bang for their energy buck by switching to $12/MMBTU natural gas instead of $22/MMBTU #3 Resid. The biggest fuel-switchable consumers are power plants and rust belt heavy manufacturing. My guess is that none of those guys has had their oil bunkers full in the last 3-5 years.

So, yes, crude and natural gas are very different commodities and the relationship between their is very tenuous (some people can see a leading/lagging relationship, but I don't have their calibrated eyeballs).

David
 
Greg,
Thanks for finding that, the EIA has so much stuff and much of it is hidden pretty well, I'd never seen that table before.

It is interesting that while natural gas has increased in price by nearly 7 fold (about $1.25 in 1995 and $8 in 2006) the amount of power generated with it has nearly doubled.

It is also amazing that nuclear has remained strong over the period with no new plants in many years.

Renewables remain at a whopping 2%.

David
 
Your strawman was that they are all blamed on the UK govt

but LCruiser, instead of getting all cranky, why don’t you just re-read what you posted:

Coal is also a viable option - even more so if the British government allows the use of the Liquid Solvent Extraction method of converting it to syncrude, at over 95% efficiency.

Unfortunately, the UK is keeping the lid on it - and, as a result, millions of people are starving to death because of the increased price of corn etc. because of the ethanol boom


You may not have intended it to be interpreted in this way but, I read your posting to say that the UK government has technology that can prevent millions of people starving to death but choose not to make it available: if they did release this technology then the milions would not starve to death. If I have misunderstood your intent then I apologise.

I am well aware that there are many people all over the world starving and going hungry each night. The divide between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’ has always existed and is not a new phenomenon.

Zimbabwe, North Korea, Darfur and Burma are all politically inspired humanitarian crises inspired and driven by political despots and nothing to do with the cost of energy. Even if energy was free in these countries, their leaders would still impose suffering on their countrymen in order to stay in power. In Zimbabwe for example, food aid is currently only given to supporters of the opposition MDC party if they hand over their ID to representatives of the ruling ZANU party – however, without ID they would have been unable to vote in the upcoming (possibly) presidential elections – starvation in that country is nothing to do with energy and all to do with manipulating the voting process.

BTW good link, but totally unrelated to this posting
 
Gotta say I read it that way as well.

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIG:please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
 
That's how I saw it. Lcruiser, I did a quick google after reading your initial "UK govt..." post and didn't see anything in the first 10-20 results for a couple of different worded searches.

electric pete, I'm not sure about your math. 47% to gasoline 23% to diesal/heating fuel. Now I don't know how much of that diesel/heating fuel is used in automobiles as opposed to trucks, trains, boats/ships, heating... but I'd suspect enough of it is used in automobiles to mean that over 1/2 the total amount is used in automobiles. This may depend on whether the above figures are for the world or for the US though, as US has fairly low usage of diesal in passenger cars.

What are the reasons LPG and Natural Gas (both liquid and compressed) aren't used more in automobiles and other road transport? I'm aware of some of the issues such as lower fuel density, concern over leaks/how to fight vehcicle fires etc. but are there others/what are they. Given that it's generally regarded as cleaner burning why haven't places like California, which seems to have one of the highest levels of concern about auto emmissions, done more to encourage its use?

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
 
TPL's straw man was the first concept:
"Millions? Really? and its all the fault of the UK?"
as if all the millions of people starving to death on the planet are the fault of the UK.

His second, more reasonable, concept is that:
"I read your posting to say that the UK government has technology that can prevent millions of people starving to death but choose not to make it available: if they did release this technology then the milions would not starve to death" which I believe to be true. There is a lot information on the cost effectiveness, but nothing bulletproof on the UK govt restricting the process that I can find. Here are some links:


 
I read all of the first link and what I perceived to be the relevant section of the second.

As you point out in your last post, I don't see any real fuel to the fire that the UK govt is involved in some conspiracy to keep this technology down. (Not that I'd necessarily doubt it given the UK goverments relationship with the mining industry/unions since the mid 80s)

Also, unless I'm mistaken the second link suggests that the Chinese are doing if not exactly the same process something similar.

That said the current $ per barrel is around 5 times what both articles seem to suggest is necessary to make LSE economically viable. Even allowing for the inflation over the last few years, that would suggest it's worth looking at.


KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
 
Kenat - I don't disagree with the way you characterized the numbers. It strengthens the point I was making that the majority of use of oil/gas is for transport... which is a function that is not particularly filled by electricity.

The way I view it in my smplified approximate world is that electricity sources and oil/gas supply two different markets, not very interchangeable. It probably will change in the future, but I don't see a lot of crossover possibilities at present.

The only natural gas powered vehicles I have seen are forklifts for use in warehouses (like the one at our plant). Apparently the exhaust of those are more tolerable indoors than a gas combustion engine.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor