A BBC view of natural gas supply
Posted by Heading Out on August 5, 2006 - 10:53am
While the article discussed the relative benefits of calm, rather than anxiety in dealing with Russia, it did raise the issue of trust, and the relative distribution of Russian gas between the domestic and export markets. This is an issue of obvious concern, both internally to Russia and to Europe and the possible LNG customers in North America.
A recent study has suggested that there is not, at present, enough gas to go around.
ensuring domestic supplies would also require that Russia decrease exports of natural gas to European markets, according to the report, which notes the potential consequences for the CIS, Asian-Pacific, and European gas markets. . . . . . "Taking into account the objective results, in the future one cannot discount the growing internal demand for gas," the NIIGazekonomika study states. "The fulfillment of any of the scenarios presented can potentially lead to an inability by Russian Federation producers to meet demand for gas in both domestic and foreign markets. This situation in turn can prevent double-digit Russian GDP growth and can disrupt gas export obligations."Such gas is is currently anticipated to be on the market is in the hands of a very small number of people. Further, the widespread assumption that the "market will prevail" is not seen as working, since increasingly, supplies are being tied up in long-term contracts. Part of this distrust in the market is apparently coming from the Chinese, who are assiduously lining up supplies now, rather than anticipating being able to acquire them, as needed, on the spot market of the future.
As a result, without investments in the so-far undeveloped fields, such as those of the Yamal Peninsula and those in Obskoy and Tazov, there will not be enough natural gas to go round. And because of the way that Gazprom is currently making investments, outside the industry, it will increasingly need foreign investment if it is to exploit the fields that it needs, in time to meet foreign expectations.
And Gazprom is challenging the rights of others to run pipelines where it has interests. Gazprom is fighting the plans of ExxonMobil to run a gas pipeline from Sakhalin Island to China. They want to run their own.
"(Exxon's pipeline) is not foreseen in the programme of development of Russia's Far East and East Siberia and does not meet the goal of a complex development of gas transportation system in the country's east," the source was quoted as saying.The BBC article pointed out that more of the world's natural gas is being transported by LNG tanker (as appears to be the favored method from Sakhalin) but with tanker numbers needing to triple, supply chains are becoming longer and more complex, and the security has not been addressed.Gazprom wants to build two pipelines from Siberia to China, which would supply up to 80 billion cubic metres per year.
Bear in mind that natural disasters can be much worse than terrorist attacks, and that while the United States have not seen hurricanes this season yet, China has been hit six times already, with Prapiroon having just diminished to tropical storm status. The article points out that both China and India are building oil stocks to guard against such disruptions. However, while the facilities have been in place for a time, the costs of oil have so far been reported to have slowed down the actual filling of them.
China has paid a lot of money to establish positions around the world - but they have a different utility curve, and have made a commitment to security that others have not. Thus they are buying into new fields, rather than relying on the production of older fields as do other world customers (such as us) and who will, accordingly see the impacts of depletion earlier. However Dr Yergin felt that we were putting more effort into producing more efficient cars.
The article ended with the need to cooperate and integrate European and US oil and gas systems, to confront the current situation. Whether the EU can do this, to ensure energy security, is a critical series of issues for the EU. But it requires that each country realize the crisis and that it has to work with others to find a real answer. Otherwise Gazprom will divide and rule.
It notes that there is more to energy security than exporting our values.
And as a final note, as we try and assess whether Russian oil production is nearing a peak, it is a little more difficult to do, when companies are producing oil off the books.
The West-Siberian Noyabrsk Prosecutor's Office in Russia's Yamal-Nenets autonomous district has opened three cases against Sibneft-Noyabrskneftegaz, accusing the company of producing over RUB 15 bln worth of excess oil in 2001-2005, Yevgeny Mikhnov, a senior prosecutor's assistant, told Interfax.
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
What I don't get is that even if you believe this date, it's still terrifying. That's only 14 years away! Blink of an eye.
Note that the charges are that they sold about $500million of oil; even at lower prices, this is only about 10 to 30 million barrels over a five year period-- or at the maximum, less than 20,000 bpd. Not material to determining peak production, even if repeated five times by other companies.
Putin is fully aware of the power that Russia has with its natural resources, and he is making sure that he controls it. Europe will be looking at Russia very differently in five years. If Russia does not develop its gas fields, then there is no way that Europe can have gas, without paying dearly, both economically and politically, for it.
And what did the US Do?
Send Cheney to peripheral states to start lecturing Russia about 'democracy'...
I have always said, a nuclear tipped, oil and gas rich Russia will have us by the balls , should it so choose.
But also, Russia itself will ramp up internal oil consumption for its higher standard of living. Other countries too will have less oil for market as either they ramp up internal consumption or deplete to levels that match existing levels of internal consumption.
Oil will not be the fungible commodity that the WTO and Globalists think it is.
Cheney: ''The American Way of Life is not negotiable''
Putin: ''Lets see''
Alright maybe they should use the oil revenues to fund illegal wars and plunge countries into civil war. Would that be more democratic?
Marco.
The world resents this military policeman poking all of it's fingers in other countries business so blatently. You can see it in the european stance.
Marco
This is perfect. While the Chinese invest appropriately for an Energy-Deficient future, We in the Western World frantically waste time trying to salvage a DEAD investment in our current unsustainable civilization.
China is investing in a world class train system, too, but it must be nice to have so much capital to throw around that one can invest in everything. On the other hand, at least they may have something to fall back on once they realize the folly of their attempt to emulate the west as far as automobile ownership. We will have nothing to fall back on except bicycles, buses, and walking.
The U.S. primary investment is in military weaponry, combined with wasting billions of dollars flowing to firms like Halliburton. I guess the plan is to wait until everything has their oil and gas flowing and then take over the whole world.
Iraq will probably end up as at least three countries. This might be a good course for the U.S. as well. We could start by splitting off the west coast states who seem to have a more forward thinking energy policy than the nation as a whole.
This is perhaps the best rebuttal of the technolover's creed I have ever seen. It covers the physics of the techno nightmare and shows how the "solutions" offered by industry, government and others who fantasize about the infinite planet are dead wrong. It uncovers the bad logic, worse math, and outright distortions of their arguments showing that their energy accounting skills are bankrupt.
I highly recommend this article.
The paper you cited looks like it was assuming the worst case,not the medium, average, or best case. Which is the better assumption? Let the audience decide.
Full disclosure: The paper I cite was apparently written by or for the company that is producing the Tesla. While one should always be skeptical, especially when the author may have something to gain, keep in mind that the assumptions and calculations made by the author are explicit and can be examined and challenged by the discerning reader. I wouldn't dismiss the article out of hand just because it was written by a person associated with the BEV industry, such as it is.
The paper looks reasonable to me but I would like others to look at it who have more expertise in this area to critically examine the paper. If the paper is valid, it appears that we should gradually move to a higher mix of electric cars. Further work needs to be done, however, to consider the embodied energy of both the ev and its competitors in an apples to apples comparison.
FWIW, I am not a tech lover, and would like to see the private auto largely eliminated. However, to the extent, that we are going to own and drive personal vehicles, I would like to see us drive the most efficient possible. Let the best technology prevail in terms of efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions. I don't care which technology is chosen as long as they meet those two basic criteria. I certainly don't have an ax to grind.
The danger, regardless of technology, of course, is that people will just fixate on the supposed technofix, keep driving, and forget about what we have done to our countryside and our cities, what a real hell hole most of them are if one is at all conscious and understands the alternative land use arrangements. It also helps if one has ever lived in Europe where they tend to have a more rational approach to the way they lay out their cities and the fact that one is not so dependent upon the auto. Of course, things could have changed a lot since I lived there, in the 1980s.
We have grown up with the auto and cannot imagine any other arrangement. The noise,the traffic, the insanity, is just part of the background noise which we have largely become accustomed to. We accept our fate and drive on. I have never bought into this paradigm but I too have become somewhat numb, if for no other reason than to survive emotionally.
-
They assume natural gas fired electricity with 60% thermal efficiency.
The overall thermal efficiency for generation in the US
is actually just about 45%.
Given the recent history of natural gas supplies and prices,
it seems to be more likely that we will be expanding
coal generation (at about 33% efficiency)
than that we will be expanding gas generation.
-
They use a figure of 110 watt-hours per km, or just under 180 watt-hours per mile.
The figure I am more used to seeing is about 250 watt-hours per mile.
The Tesla may indeed be more efficient than other electric vehicles,
but it would be important to understand why.
A more realistic estimate of their energy figures for a generic electric car would need to be adjusted down by a factor of about 0.75 to account for the actual mix of generating fuels. That would yield 0.86 MJ/km, still better than the other vehicles in their comparison but not by nearly as much.From the article - "There are secondary considerations to be evaluated which are beyond the scope of this paper. They include the energy cost of refining the gasoline as well as the energy cost to transport it. ..."
Without a detailed and accurate accounting of all the processing steps for both sources of energy it's difficult to tell what is the truth.
Example - From
http://www.electroauto.com/info/poll.shtml
"Isn't a lot of energy wasted in the inefficiency of the power transmission lines?
Yes, there is a high level of efficiency loss in power transmission. However, it is still less than the inefficiencies of the internal combustion engine. For example, take two barrels of oil in the ground. Take one and turn it into gas to run a car. Turn the other into electricity to run an EV. Out of the 100% total potential energy in the crude oil, only 11% is left to turn the wheels of the car. The rest is lost in inefficiencies of extraction, refining, delivery, and combustion. Out the 100% total potential energy in the other barrel, 17% is left to power the wheels of the EV. The overall system from well to wheel is much more efficient for EVs than for internal combustion vehicles."
It would be interesting to see the results of a study performed by a reputable organization.
Bokken
Thanks for passing this on, HO.
And only Aussies can call us pommies
If you are a yank (septic tank), you are allowed to call us limeys.
BTW
What do the Canadians call us?
Never seen a bitch trained so well as Toady B. Liar.
Canadians think they don't speak with an "accent"!!
So there. Ha! So should we call you Brits "potatoes" instead?!?!
Pomerania is/was a place name.
A small cucumber, especially one used for pickling
[Dutch gurken, pl. of gurk, cucumber, short for agurk, possibly from Polish ogorek, perhaps from Late Greek angourion.]
So many things come to mind. The shape, the intent (pickling) -- it's like a Rorschach test.
I could be wrong but it fits so well!
http://www.rambler.ru/db/news/msg.html?mid=8168833&s=6
http://www.rambler.ru/db/news/msg.html?mid=8392018&s=6
Russia increased oil production in January- June by 2,5%, gas - by 2,3%, the export of oil - by 5%
Moscow. 3 July. INTERFAKS-ANI - oil production with the gas condensate in Russia January- June of 2006 was 236,06 mln. tons, which by 2,5% is higher than analogous index of 2005. According to operational data OF GP "TSDU TEK", during June in Russia were produced 39,65 mln. tons of raw material. The output of gas in six months of this year was 333,084 billion cu. m, which to 2,3% exceeded the appropriate index of 2005. During June it was produced by 49,158 billion cu. m of gas. The export of Russian oil into the countries of distant zarubezh'ya in January- June grew by 5% - to 104,25 mln. tons. In the past month Russia placed on the export into distant zarubezh'e of 17,789 mln. tons of raw material.
2nd link translated:
Oil production in Russia in January- July grew by 2,4%
According to the operational information, in 7 months of 2006 in Russia are obtained 276,87 million tons of oil with the gas condensate, which to 2,4% exceeds the analogous index of past year. During July oil production was 40,92 million tons (by 2,3% higher than last year's index). In 7 months of the present year the petroleum companies of Russia obtained 254,23 million tons of oil (+2,2%), By "gazprom" - 7,44 million tons (-0,4%). During July petroleum companies obtained 37,69 million tons of oil (+2,6%), By "gazprom" - 1,09 million tons (+3,0%). The export of oil from Russia to the countries of distant zarubezh'ya along the system of "trans-oil" uch.etom of transit of resources in 7 months was 131,15 million tons (+5,2%). During July are set for the export in distant zarubezh'e 19,27 million tons of oil (+6,1%).
-C.
westexas I'm sure has numbers on Russia and possibly it's been posted here before =)
-C.
http://omrpublic.iea.org/supply/ru_to_ts.pdf
BTW, the oil supply has been slightly falling since May. For the sake of comparison, the jump from May to June should be subjected to a seasonal correction of -0.8%. If you check the data of the last 10 years, you will see that the change in Russia's daily oil production from May to June of the same year exceeds the change in the annual oil production from that year to the next by an average of 0.8%.
You're from Russia and you ride bulls? =)
I am married to a Russian woman and I actually grew up in the mid-south and yes, I did ride bulls. I worked a dairy farm of 1500 acres and 400 head of cattle, growing up. Then off to college and now in the IT biz...go figure.
-C.
This is the market, in sensible operation. As in the fable of the grasshopper and the ants, people who enter the market with a long term view tend to do better.
As a treatment of actions that could be taken in the US, note my recent position paper proposing that the Federal Government should offer long term contracts for energy from new, renewable sources enough to match its rather substantial energy consumption. This is a national safety measure. Based in fair part on discussion here I point at wind as the most plausible technology in the near term. I do not discuss alternative storage energy methods when these become necessary for load balancing, but continue to expect to see more discussion of large compressed air (into, say, salt domes). However, I don't beleive that the government should make that decision.
George Phillies