The Trouble With the Falling Oil Price

Nikkster

vivatifosi wrote: »

OPEC has lost the ability to set oil prices and that they could be low for the next 15 years.

How come OPEC is allowed to operate as a cartel? This is generally a huge no-no in many other industries (with fines etc. if you get caught). Why is it different in this case?

jjlandlord

Nikkster wrote: »

How come OPEC is allowed to operate as a cartel? This is generally a huge no-no in many other industries (with fines etc. if you get caught). Why is it different in this case?

OPEC is an association of countries.

Countries are sovereign and they can do whatever they want.
It is a raw power struggle, you can bully, threaten, attack, retaliate, and the strongest prevails.

Joe_Bloggs

@cells

It costs less than $8m to drill a new shale well in the USA. The payback at $50 oil and $3.50 NatGas from just first year production is over $13m for good oil sites. So even at todays 'low' oil price payback is less than a year

Go on and do it in shale you think your hard enough ! It may make more sense to bottle those reserves and sell them when it makes more sense.

How will this material be transported to power stations/fuel transport locations it if it is diffused amongst thousands of locations.

In the UK there may be an issue with whatever gets pumped down there becomes mildly radioactive once it reaches the surface. This becomes a radioactive hazard . Coal ash is also a radioactive hazard and a potential source of Uranium.

I do think that this a neat example of where we currently get our energy in the UK .
:-http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
There may other portrayals as stunning out there.
J_B.

cells

Joe_Bloggs wrote: »

@cells


Go on and do it in shale you think It may make more sense to bottle those reserves and sell them when it makes more sense.

How will this material be transported to power stations/fuel transport locations it if it is diffused amongst thousands of locations.

In the UK there may be an issue with whatever gets pumped down there becomes mildly radioactive once it reaches the surface. This becomes a radioactive hazard . Coal ash is also a radioactive hazard and a potential source of Uranium.

I do think that this a neat example of where we currently get our energy in the UK .
:-http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
There may other portrayals as stunning out there.
J_B.

What was that post but a collection of unrelated jumbles? But I will try

The issue of 'thousands of locations' isn't what you imagine. The gas grid already exists in the UK and it is pretty extensive and quite high capacity. If you frack at a site its a tiny stip of land less than an acre and will have multiple wells at one site. Also a new shale gas site in America at the marcellus field yields 8,000,000 cubic feet per day. To put that in to a number the average jo can understand its equal to roughly the average gas use of 70,000 uk homes. So one shale site feeds 70,000 homes and the site post drilling is smaller than a house.

If the uk drilled 125 shale sites per year as productive as the marcellis field that would be about 100% of our needs. So not thousands and even so the sitesy are tiny low impact (smaller than a bungalow) post drilling (about 8 weeks high impact drilling and site activities and then 15-20 years of very low nobody knows its there production)



Radioactivity. Do you mean radon gas coming up with the nat gas? Its processed to pipeline specs before it id fed into the nat gas grid. They don't just pump any and all of what comes out the ground.


As for your link about where we get our energy that is wrong. That is a link that shows how the uk generates its electricity. Most Nat Gas in thr UK is used for non electricity generation. About 2/3rds to 3/4ths of nat gas is used for heating domestic commercial and industry. So even if someone is an optimist and thinks wind or PV or Nuclear is the way forward for electricity generation we would still need a lot of nat gas for other things.


Anyway longy story short the yanks have managed to get shale oil past 5mbpd and sgale gas past 8mbpd (equivalent) and that is amazing and we need some of that magic here

jjlandlord

cells wrote: »

So even if someone is an optimist and thinks wind or PV or Nuclear is the way forward for electricity generation we would still need a lot of nat gas for other things.

Probably, although it is also possible to push for the replacement of gas central heating with other systems.

ess0two

cells wrote: »

What was that post but a collection of unrelated jumbles? But I will try

The issue of 'thousands of locations' isn't what you imagine. The gas grid already exists in the UK and it is pretty extensive and quite high capacity. If you frack at a site its a tiny stip of land less than an acre and will have multiple wells at one site. Also a new shale gas site in America at the marcellus field yields 8,000,000 cubic feet per day. To put that in to a number the average jo can understand its equal to roughly the average gas use of 70,000 uk homes. So one shale site feeds 70,000 homes and the site post drilling is smaller than a house.

If the uk drilled 125 shale sites per year as productive as the marcellis field that would be about 100% of our needs. So not thousands and even so the sitesy are tiny low impact (smaller than a bungalow) post drilling (about 8 weeks high impact drilling and site activities and then 15-20 years of very low nobody knows its there production)



Radioactivity. Do you mean radon gas coming up with the nat gas? Its processed to pipeline specs before it id fed into the nat gas grid. They don't just pump any and all of what comes out the ground.


As for your link about where we get our energy that is wrong. That is a link that shows how the uk generates its electricity. Most Nat Gas in thr UK is used for non electricity generation. About 2/3rds to 3/4ths of nat gas is used for heating domestic commercial and industry. So even if someone is an optimist and thinks wind or PV or Nuclear is the way forward for electricity generation we would still need a lot of nat gas for other things.


Anyway longy story short the yanks have managed to get shale oil past 5mbpd and sgale gas past 8mbpd (equivalent) and that is amazing and we need some of that magic here

Too simplistic about the grid,any new supplies would need to be tied into a processing terminal,should they require any dehydration or contain H2s.
East irish sea fields for example are tied into terminals at Barrow where the gas is processed as above.

cells

ess0two wrote: »

Too simplistic about the grid,any new supplies would need to be tied into a processing terminal,should they require any dehydration or contain H2s.
East irish sea fields for example are tied into terminals at Barrow where the gas is processed as above.

What of it?

cells

jjlandlord wrote: »

Probably, although it is also pabundantlynge so for the replacement of gas central heating with other systems.

Not likely anytime soon. At a best case it would take 20 years to change the current grid and then 20 years after that to electrify heating which makes it 40 years minimum as a best case. More importantly it hasn't been done anywhere that isn't blessed with very abundant hydro so it isn't even clear if it is possible at all.

So we need NatGas for a lifetime. Good news is that NG is abundant and we can import it but it would be better to produce it domestically if we can for the jobs and income

jjlandlord

cells wrote: »

More importantly it hasn't been done anywhere that isn't blessed with very abundant hydro so it isn't even clear if it is possible at all.

Many new and new-ish builds across the Channel do not have gas heating.
But they do have a lot of nuclear plants (I'm not commenting on whether that's a good or bad thing).

The point is that everything is possible if one has a long term plan and keeps at it.
Two things that we are lacking.

ess0two

cells wrote: »

What of it?

You seem to think like the masses,dig a hole extract the gas,its that easy.