No place to put natural gas we drill.

[RandomGuy]

Long stroy short:

Projections are that our capacity to store the natgas we drill will be reached in October. We have drilled so much so fast, we have outpaced domestic demand.



----------------------------------------------

Natural gas glut means drilling boom must slow

By JONATHAN FAHEY, AP Energy Writer – 3 days ago
NEW YORK (AP) — The U.S. natural gas market is bursting at the seams.

So much natural gas is being produced that soon there may be nowhere left to put the country's swelling surplus. After years of explosive growth, natural gas producers are retrenching.

The underground salt caverns, depleted oil fields and aquifers that store natural gas are rapidly filling up after a balmy winter depressed demand for home heating.

The glut has benefited businesses and homeowners that use natural gas. But with natural gas prices at a 10-year low — and falling — companies that produce the fuel are becoming victims of their drilling successes. Their stock prices are falling in anticipation of declining profits and scaled-back growth plans.

Some of the nation's biggest natural gas producers, including Chesapeake Energy, ConocoPhillips and Encana Corp., have announced plans to slow down.

"They've gotten way ahead of themselves, and winter got way ahead of them too," says Jen Snyder, head of North American gas for the research firm Wood Mackenzie. "There hasn't been enough demand to use up all the supply being pushed into the market."

So far, efforts to limit production have barely made a dent. Unless the pace of production declines sharply or demand picks up significantly this summer, analysts say the nation's storage facilities could reach their limits by fall.

That would cause the price of natural gas, which has been halved over the past year, to nosedive. Citigroup commodities analyst Anthony Yuen says the price of natural gas — now $2.08 per 1,000 cubic feet — could briefly fall below $1.

"There would be no floor," he says.

Since October, the number of drilling rigs exploring for natural gas has fallen by 30 percent to 658, according to the energy services company Baker Hughes. Some of the sharpest drop-offs have been in the Haynesville Shale in Northwestern Louisiana and East Texas and the Fayetteville Shale in Central Arkansas. But natural gas production is still growing, the result of a five-year drilling boom that has peppered the country with wells.

The workers and rigs aren't just being sent home. They are instead being put to work drilling for oil, whose price has averaged more than $100 a barrel for months. The oil rig count in the U.S is at a 25-year high. This activity is adding to the natural gas glut because natural gas is almost always a byproduct of oil drilling.

Analysts say that before long companies could have to start slowing the gas flow from existing wells or even take the rare and expensive step of capping off some wells completely.

"Something is going to have to give," says Maria Sanchez, manager of energy analysis at Bentek Energy, a research firm.

U.S. natural gas production has boomed in recent years as a result of new drilling techniques that allow companies to unlock fuel trapped in shale formations. Last year, the U.S. produced an average of 63 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day, a 24 percent increase from 2006. But over that period consumption has grown half as fast.

The nation's storage facilities could easily handle this extra supply until recently because cold winters pushed up demand for heating and hot summers led to higher demand for air conditioning. Just over half the nation's homes are heated with natural gas, and one-quarter of its electricity is produced by gas-fired power plants.

But this past winter was the fourth warmest in the last 117 years, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It was the warmest March since 1950.

Between November and March, daily natural gas demand fell 5 percent, on average, from a year earlier, according to Bentek Energy. Yet production grew 8 percent over the same period.

"We haven't ever seen a situation like this before," says Chris McGill, Vice President for Policy Analysis at the American Gas Association, an industry group.

At the end of winter, there is usually about 1.5 trillion cubic feet of gas in storage. Today there is 2.5 trillion cubic feet because utilities withdrew far less than usual this past winter.

There is 4.4 trillion cubic feet of natural gas storage capacity in the U.S. If full, that would be enough fuel to supply the country for about 2 months.

If current production and consumption trends were to continue, Bentek estimates that storage facilities would be full on October 10.

Storage capacity, which has grown by 15 percent over the past decade, cannot be built fast enough to address the rapidly expanding glut. And analysts note there is little financial incentive to build more anyway.

The low price brought on by the glut has increased demand for natural gas among industrial users and utilities.

Makers of chemicals, plastics and fertilizers that use natural gas as a feedstock are expanding. Garbage trucks, buses and delivery vehicles are using more natural gas. Electric power producers are switching from coal to natural gas whenever possible.

This won't add up to enough new demand quickly enough to relieve the pressure on storage facilities this summer.

Scorching temperatures this summer would do the trick, but Mother Nature is not expected to cooperate.

Temperatures this summer are forecast to be about normal, and much cooler than the last two summers, says David Streit, a meteorologist at Commodity Weather Group expects.

Sultry winters, he said, do not usually develop into sultry summers.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5haQlA-oNeXqU1oURtMIF_Qzzu3Kg?docId=bdfac10c4c0a4a8eb7d7b 3a4eb586fac

[CosmicCowboy]

And why the fuck aren't we pushing natural gas vehicles?

A gallon of gas = 125,000 btu of energy and costs almost $4.

1000 cu ft of natural gas has 1,000,000 btu of energy and costs $2.

pretty fucking simple math.

[ChumpDumper]

Would it cost $2 is all the cars were using it?

[CosmicCowboy]

Would it cost $2 is all the cars were using it?

In Texas probably. Maybe a little more. The southern portion of the Eagleford Shale is full of natural gas. Even at triple the price it's still hugely cheaper than gasoline.

At $3.50 a gallon a million BTU costs $28

[boutons_deux]

"why the fuck aren't we pushing natural gas vehicles"

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/04/11/4407093/hertz-introduces-compressed-natural.html

The French have had CNG passengers cars and the CNG filling stations for 20+ years. They import LNG from Libya, etc

[cantthinkofanything]

In Texas probably. Maybe a little more. The southern portion of the Eagleford Shale is full of natural gas. Even at triple the price it's still hugely cheaper than gasoline.

At $3.50 a gallon a million BTU costs $28

I don't think that's valid. You're using what looks like wellhead pricing. If you're going to compare apples to apples, you need to figure in tax, transportation cost, processing costs and whatever else it takes to get that natural gas to a pump for your car.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And why the fuck aren't we pushing natural gas vehicles?

A gallon of gas = 125,000 btu of energy and costs almost $4.

1000 cu ft of natural gas has 1,000,000 btu of energy and costs $2.

pretty fucking simple math.

Storage and safety concerns.

[RandomGuy]

And why the fuck aren't we pushing natural gas vehicles?

A gallon of gas = 125,000 btu of energy and costs almost $4.

1000 cu ft of natural gas has 1,000,000 btu of energy and costs $2.

pretty fucking simple math.

Because up until recently prices have been pretty high, relative to oil. It hasn't made economic sense, coupled with the lack of refueling stations. No infrastructure. Not entirely dissimilar to EV's.

You can bet the sales of natgas trucks will probably accelerate a bit as the price settles in for the near term at historic lows.

http://www.naturalgas-vehicles.com/natural-gas-vehicles-for-sale.html

Cities with natgas buses are probably happy with it.

[RandomGuy]

And why the fuck aren't we pushing natural gas vehicles?

A gallon of gas = 125,000 btu of energy and costs almost $4.

1000 cu ft of natural gas has 1,000,000 btu of energy and costs $2.

pretty fucking simple math.


. Among the disadvantages are a limited distance between refueling, trunk space, higher initial cost, and lack of refueling infrastructure.

Sound familiar?

:lol

ref: everything you say about EV's... :p:

[cantthinkofanything]

Storage and safety concerns.

Do you want to expound on this? I don't find much in the way of safety concerns other than off the cuff remarks like yours. At least not when compared to the amount of information pointing to them being as safe if not safer than gasoline powered cars.

[cantthinkofanything]

Because up until recently prices have been pretty high, relative to oil. It hasn't made economic sense, coupled with the lack of refueling stations. No infrastructure. Not entirely dissimilar to EV's.

You can bet the sales of natgas trucks will probably accelerate a bit as the price settles in for the near term at historic lows.

http://www.naturalgas-vehicles.com/natural-gas-vehicles-for-sale.html

Cities with natgas buses are probably happy with it.

A major hurdle to overcome is the cyclical volatility of natural gas. Unless storage capacity dramatically increases, people with natural gas cars would be vulnerable to the potential (based on historical prices) to see prices quadruple in only months during periods of severe drawdown.

[CosmicCowboy]

I don't think that's valid. You're using what looks like wellhead pricing. If you're going to compare apples to apples, you need to figure in tax, transportation cost, processing costs and whatever else it takes to get that natural gas to a pump for your car.

It costs $7.50 per thousand cubic feet delivered right to my house.

[cantthinkofanything]

It costs $7.50 per thousand cubic feet delivered right to my house.

I'm not disputing that it's currently way cheaper per MMBtu. But in your comparison, you were using $2 / Mcf.

[Drachen]

It costs $7.50 per thousand cubic feet delivered right to my house.

This isn't for trolling purposes or anything, just interested. How much does it cost you to store it. (i.e. how much did the tank cost installed)?

[CosmicCowboy]

This isn't for trolling purposes or anything, just interested. How much does it cost you to store it. (i.e. how much did the tank cost installed)?

I don't have to store it at my house. There is a (for all practical purposes) endless supply coming out of the pipeline to my house. To put it in your car/truck all it takes is a compressor.

[Sportcamper]

And why the fk aren't we pushing natural gas vehicles?
A gallon of gas = 125,000 btu of energy and costs almost $4.
1000 cu ft of natural gas has 1,000,000 btu of energy and costs $2.
pretty fkn simple math.

Like who even knows this stuff off the top of their head...:lol

[CosmicCowboy]

I'm not disputing that it's currently way cheaper per MMBtu. But in your comparison, you were using $2 / Mcf.

I also used $3.50 for gas.

It doesn't take a math wizard to adjust the variables. It's still $7.50 compared to $28 for the same amount of energy in gasoline.

[CosmicCowboy]

Like who even knows this stuff off the top of their head...:lol

:lol

me for one...

[cantthinkofanything]

I also used $3.50 for gas.

It doesn't take a math wizard to adjust the variables. It's still $7.50 compared to $28 for the same amount of energy in gasoline.

Thanks. I get the math. Just making a friendly suggestion that you should compare apples to apples next time.

[Sportcamper]

125,000 Btu of energy and costs almost $4
1000 cu ft of natural gas has 1,000,000 Btu
Normal people need to look that stuff up in technical manuals…

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Do you want to expound on this? I don't find much in the way of safety concerns other than off the cuff remarks like yours. At least not when compared to the amount of information pointing to them being as safe if not safer than gasoline powered cars.

How do you put 1000 cubic feet of gas into a 20 gallon container?

Its gas under pressure. On the one side its not going to pool but on the other hand if there is a fire its not like the compartmental gas fuel tanks. It will go boom. The flash is very, very hot.

Storage is a concern because cars vibrate and gas under pressure is prone to leaks. Hydrogen is even worse because its a smaller molecule but the issue with that is when it burns it also oxidizes everything else specifically nitrogen which makes nitrates.

Most everything you are going to find on the net is going to be sourced from the natural gas lobby. If you read through enough of them you will quickly see that they even use the same phrasing.

[cantthinkofanything]

How do you put 1000 cubic feet of gas into a 20 gallon container?

Its gas under pressure. On the one side its not going to pool but on the other hand if there is a fire its not like the compartmental gas fuel tanks.

Storage is a concern because cars vibrate and gas under pressure is prone to leaks. Hydrogen is even worse because its a smaller molecule but the issue with that is when it burns it also oxidizes everything else specifically nitrogen which makes nitrates.

Most everything you are going to find on the net is going to be sourced from the natural gas lobby. If you read through enough of them you will quickly see that they even use the same phrasing.

First of all, we're not talking about hydrogen. I have no idea if it's safer or not.

Second, I'm assuming we're talking about professionally installed tanks and not someone rigging up their own system.

Compressed natural gas has a narrower range of flammability than gasoline. It also disperses very quickly into the air. In its somewhat limited use to date in cars/buses, the safety record is excellent.

[CosmicCowboy]

oh, trust me...you can make a very big boom with natural gas. Chances are though, if the collision was so violent it ruptured the CNG tank then burning the already dead occupants of the car would just make it a better headline.

[CosmicCowboy]

Oh, and inevitably you would have some idiots blow themselves and their houses up from human error while fueling their cars.

[cantthinkofanything]

oh, trust me...you can make a very big boom with natural gas. Chances are though, if the collision was so violent it ruptured the CNG tank then burning the already dead occupants of the car would just make it a better headline.


Oh, and inevitably you would have some idiots blow themselves and their houses up from human error while fueling their cars.

Hmmm. Sounds scientific enough. :rolleyes

[CosmicCowboy]

Hmmm. Sounds scientific enough. :rolleyes

You are such a weak troll. I work with natural gas things that can go boom in a big way if you fuck up.

[Drachen]

I don't have to store it at my house. There is a (for all practical purposes) endless supply coming out of the pipeline to my house. To put it in your car/truck all it takes is a compressor.

Lol! I am a moron...yeah me too.

[cantthinkofanything]

You are such a weak troll. I work with natural gas things that can go boom in a big way if you fuck up.

ok, I get it. You're still sore over yesterday's gun talk. Your expertise about natural gas is clearly abundant. Do you want to troll me and I'll pretend to get hooked? Then we can be even.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You are such a weak troll. I work with natural gas things that can go boom in a big way if you fuck up.

Thats what I was trying to get at. Its a gas so when there is a leak it will disperse in relatively quick order but subject to flame bad things will happen.

[cantthinkofanything]

Thats what I was trying to get at. Its a gas so when there is a leak it will disperse in relatively quick order but subject to flame bad things will happen.

anything involving flammibles and pressure is potentially dangerous. But it's fairly well documented that natural gas is a viable and safe alternative to gasoline for powering motor vehicles. You said that safety was a primary reason why ng powered vehicles aren't more prevalent. Which I disagreed with. And you haven't provided any real back up for your argument. Unless you're using CosmicCrackpots posts about "boom" and bad things happening.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

anything involving flammibles and pressure is potentially dangerous. But it's fairly well documented that natural gas is a viable and safe alternative to gasoline for powering motor vehicles. You said that safety was a primary reason why ng powered vehicles aren't more prevalent. Which I disagreed with. And you haven't provided any real back up for your argument. Unless you're using CosmicCrackpots posts about "boom" and bad things happening.

I found this:

http://www.ornl.gov/~webworks/cppr/y2001/rpt/115272.pdf


The key safety concern for the electric drive system is the higher voltages and currents that are required in the electric drive system. Faults that could expose personnel to these electric hazards must be considered, addressed, and minimized. The key issue for the CNG-fueled ICE is containment of the high-pressure natural gas. Events that can result in a release of natural gas with the possibility of subsequent ignition are of concern. These safety issues are discussed. The heavy HEV has the potential to have a safety record that is comparable to that of the conventional vehicle, but adequate attention to detail will be required.

It says that its currently the same as standard vehicles. Further


Failure modes that have been observed for CNG cylinders include intermittent leaks, continuous leaks, fractures, ruptures, and fragmentation ruptures. An intermittent leak occurs when a fatigue crack propagates through the cylinder wall as a result of the stress (i.e., pressure change) associated with repeated filling cycles. When a cylinder with a fatigue crack is at its maximum pressure, the crack is forced open and the cylinder leaks. Intermittent leaks have been observed in all-metal cylinders. Continuous leaks have been seen in Type 4 cylinders as a result of plastic liner defects. The flow rate is typically very low for a continuous leak. A fracture results in a larger opening and a more rapid depressurization than that associated with a continuous leak. In a rupture, the failed cylinder remains in one piece, but damage can result from articles being propelled by the gas escaping at a highvelocity. A fragmented rupture results in the cylinder being fragmented into pieces.

Which discusses the possibility of leaks lasting a good amount of time. Concerns about wear dud to vibration, your average Joe maintain the vehicle, etc make sense.


Electric shock is the event of concern for the electric drive system because of the voltages and currents associated with that system. Battery fires are a concern because of the potential for dissipation of electrochemical energy internally in a faulty battery pack. Short-circuit events are of concern with the inverter because of the high currents and resulting equipment
damage that can occur.

Like I said, most of the rhetoric on the web talking about safety is from the natural gas companies themselves.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Further


Another perspective on the matter comes from the Gilling Corp., a manufacturer of heavy-duty transit buses. Despite the lure of federal subsidies Gillig refuses to offer CNG-powered buses. BT asked Denny Howard, Gillig's president, why.

"We don't think (they're) safe," Howard responded. "Natural gas is a great fuel application, it's wonderful when it's in our home--under 15 lbs. of pressure. When you put natural gas in a vehicle it's under 3,600 lbs. of pressure (a necessity in order to get mileage). In your house, keeping tight connections is easy. The house doesn't bounce except in an earthquake. But in a bus, connections move up and down. We don't like the idea of trying to keep [volatile] fuel under 3,600 lbs. of pressure in a [moving vehicle] carrying a bunch of people. One of my neighbors was injured when his barbecue propane tank blew. The tank was under very few pounds of pressure. The incident made us think. There have been a number of close calls in the transit industry. But no one talks about the safety issues until someone [gets hurt or dies.] People [who promote natural gas] say the equipment is safe, but it's human error that causes accidents. When there is an accident [they] always say, 'our gas didn't fail.'"

http://www.stnonline.com/resources/75/635-cng-vs-diesel-issues-in-the-fuel-debate

Note he is saying the same thing I have been saying. Makes me feel better about my memory.

[cantthinkofanything]

So you searched and the best you could find was a 10 year old report?
:lol

Can't you just admit you really didn't know what you were talking about?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So you searched and the best you could find was a 10 year old report?
:lol

Can't you just admit you really didn't know what you were talking about?

Yeah when i am relating what the DOE report says that indicates I do not know anything.... :rolleyes

Youre just trolling now and its pretty boring. Try harder.

[cantthinkofanything]

Yeah when i am relating what the DOE report says that indicates I do not know anything.... :rolleyes

Youre just trolling now and its pretty boring. Try harder.

You must be the RaZon of the political board.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You must be the RaZon of the political board.

That was better but still from the land of the weak. i have been around here for years, gnsf. Its not like your schtick is hard to figure out.

Try switching it up. Try harder.

[CosmicCowboy]

Two trolls trolling each other.

:lmao

too fucking funny...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Glad you liked it CC. I actually enjoyed learning more about natural gas ICEs.

[TDMVPDPOY]

why people afraid to drive around with a 60ltr gas tank in their car, is the same as driving around with a 60ltr petrol tank, same risks

[FuzzyLumpkins]

why people afraid to drive around with a 60ltr gas tank in their car, is the same as driving around with a 60ltr petrol tank, same risks

Not even remotely. Petrol only explodes if its in vapor form. When in liquid it only burns at the surface where its able to get oxygen. Natural gas is already gaseous at atmospheric pressures and fully mixed with air as it leaks when the tank ruptures if there is an explosion, there is more than enough oxygen to go around so it all oxidizes and thus the mass expansion etc. The flash is also twice as hot meaning much more energy is released during the oxidation.

Furthermore, petrol tanks are compartmentalized to mitigate the burn whereas you cannot really do that with natural gas because it just seep as a matter of course. The tanks are also highly pressurized to store for distance travel which creates its own issues.