Big Lies on Big Oil

Townhall.com ^ | March 9, 2012 | David Limbaugh

[justlurking]

One more chart that I think you'll find interesting:

Industry Summary

This takes all of the industries in each of the sectors, and combines them into one chart. You can sort by Net Profit Margin, and see where your favorite industry fits into the list.

Don't forget to consider the market capitalization. You'll find some industries near the top, but with very small market capitalization, relative to other industries.

[thackney]

It is great having at least two people (you and Smoking Joe)in the oil business here.

There are several others. I am just a serial poster, mostly of cut-and-paste variety.

With the glut of Natural gas out there shouldn't the price of propane go down?

Propane isn't methane. And the relative high price of propane and other natural gas liquids is part of what is driving the "glut" of natural gas.

Many companies are going after the natural gas liquids from "wet" shale gas fields. They develop the field and build gas processing plants to recover the natural gas liquids. A lot of that is happening in Southern Texas. The Natural Gas is almost a byproduct at this point. But the low price will drive more consumption and eventually bring that price back up.

[justlurking]

It's nice to see someone speaking from knowledge, rather than speculation. I don't know if this is your specialty, but I'll ask anyway:

We have coal. Lots of it. But, some of it is dirtier than others. In East Texas, I think we have the dirtier coal (high sulfur content), which requires more scrubbing or results in more pollution.

But, don't we have a huge amount of low-sulfur coal in the upper Midwest and Western states? The same stuff that Clinton put off-limits by executive order?

Is there really a huge difference in the emissions? If so, wouldn't it be more efficient to build the power plants right on the edge of the coal deposits and feed the power into the grid?

[thackney]

conventional coal burning requires stack scrubbers and extra consumption in order to overcome the transmission losses

I've tried several different ways to figure out what you meant by this and cannot figure it out.

How do you imagine stack scrubbers are related to transmission losses? It doesn't matter if the power plant is immediately adjacent to the electrical load or a thousand miles away.

The requirement for pollution controls doesn't change, until you get very close to major cities, then it becomes more stringent, meaning expensive and causes even more losses.

[justlurking]

I've tried several different ways to figure out what you meant by this and cannot figure it out.

I think he meant that:

1. Conventional coal burning requires stack scrubbers (more expensive).
2. Extra consumption is required to overcome transmission losses (being farther away).

They are two independent clauses, rather than clause being dependent on the other.

But as you pointed out, coal gasification still requires scrubbers, and the process is more energy intensive than the power line losses.

[thackney]

I don't know if this is your specialty

I am an electrical engineer, specialized in power systems, working for the oil/gas industry from a family of coal miners. I took some nuclear engineering course in college but in the early 80's this looked like a dead end. Most of my "hobby" time is consumed reading energy news.

We have coal. Lots of it. But, some of it is dirtier than others. In East Texas, I think we have the dirtier coal (high sulfur content), which requires more scrubbing or results in more pollution.

The lignite we have in Texas could be (and is) described as "dirt that burns". It has a lower energy per volume rate compared to most coals.

But, don't we have a huge amount of low-sulfur coal in the upper Midwest and Western states?

There is a lot of that left in the Midwest that is not all that low in sulfur. In the huge powder river basin is a large lower sulfur coal (sub-bituminous) that has a lower BTU content than the Midwest bituminous coal.

The same stuff that Clinton put off-limits by executive order? I believe you are referring to the Executive Order designating 1.7 million acres of land in southwest Utah as the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.

Is there really a huge difference in the emissions?

In terms of sulfur emissions, yes. This was the acid-rain concerns back at the 70's or so that shut down a lot of Ohio and other Midwest coal mines.

If so, wouldn't it be more efficient to build the power plants right on the edge of the coal deposits and feed the power into the grid?

Some of that is done, like with the Texas lignite mines where the volume of "coal" to be moved is so great compared to the energy produced.

But you can move a lot of coal by train fairly cost effectively. The advantage of coal fuel is you don't have to build pressure containing vessels or the like to store a 30 day supply. The market is pretty good at coming to the least cost solution without government interference.

[thackney]

Conventional coal burning requires stack scrubbers (more expensive).

More expensive than what option?

Extra consumption is required to overcome transmission losses (being farther away).

But compared to a Gas pipeline, where you have to be moving 167 MW of gas for 100 MW of delivered electric power, the slightly lower losses of a gas pipeline are greatly offset by the massive amount of more energy that has to be moved the same distance before reaching the power plant.

By converting to electric power farther out, less energy has to be transported the greater distance.

[justlurking]

More expensive than what option?

Not scrubbing it. :-) But, as you pointed out -- coal gasification still requires scrubbing.

[thackney]

I don't know if this is your specialty

I should have added I worked in the electric power industry for a few years before I got too bored to stay with them. They develop people extremely knowledgeable in narrow areas of specialty related to their work, typically.

The idea of spending 20 years doing something like transmission line relaying, terrified me.

As a consulting engineer, our goal is to work ourselves out of a job to go on to the next one. We are hired by oil/gas companies to build facilities. We engineer/design a facility, specify and procure equipment and assist with construction. Most of the construction assistance is answer questions either due to our own mistakes, changes from vendor supplied equipment, making design changes due to forced changes during construction, etc.

It means every job has a defined ending. It usually only last longer than that because it is going badly. Doing very good work shortens the length of time the job will keep you employed. For some, this is terrifying; they need more perceived security. Over time I figured out that you make your own security by being good at what you do. Sometimes I didn't do so well and my time got cut short. Sometimes my personal attitude was the biggest problem. Sometimes I moved from companies that would have kept me for the next project but I was eager to lead another big job started by someone else.

By having many different clients and working different types of facilities, we learn a lot of different ways of accomplishing design requirements. Good consulting engineering companies get a lot of repeat business. Bad ones get a lot of different clients before closing.

I've enjoyed the travel it has given me. I don't like the time it takes away from the family. I really enjoy getting to visit new places. It makes for some interesting personal conflicts. It sure is not for everyone.

[thackney]

Not scrubbing it. :-) But, as you pointed out -- coal gasification still requires scrubbing.

okay, I see that. The gasification process doesn't use an actual scrubber, but it still spends energy removing the contaminates and has other significant losses in the gasification process.

[gimme1ibertee]

We have so much oil,it's seeping up from the ocean floor through relief cracks.Years of vital resources untapped and unused. Absolutely galling.

2012 can't come soon enough.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

How do you imagine stack scrubbers are related to transmission losses? It doesn't matter if the power plant is immediately adjacent to the electrical load or a thousand miles away.

Well, it's not exactly a "transmission loss" but it's a loss nevertheless. Just like a gasoline powered vehicle loses about 80% of its fuel's energy as heat...the coal burning process is only so efficient.

The coal doesn't burn clean, or scrubbers wouldn't be necessary, the gasification process is much hotter, much more like a catalytic converter temperature, and those same scrubbers wouldn't likely be in the mix.

I really doubt those units are free, use no energy, require no maintenance and are not detrimental to overall efficiency.

Of course if the coal was near to a given city or there were an established rail connection for supplying coal, the pipeline and transmission issue would also not apply.

What I can tell you from looking at my power bills, CMP couldn't "efficiency" their way out of a wet paper bag, not to mention the third world crappy reliability.

Needless to say, I think power should be produced near where it is consumed, and let those who overuse it suffer the environmental consequences of their demands. I hate the uber-grid.

[thackney]

Well, it's not exactly a "transmission loss" but it's a loss nevertheless.

Agreed. There are multiple points of loss in both systems.

Just like a gasoline powered vehicle loses about 80% of its fuel's energy as heat...

Most of the losses are in the heat engine, but not 80%.

the coal burning process is only so efficient.

Yes, but the gasified coal is still going to go through heat engines and still be limited by the Carnot Cycle.

The coal doesn't burn clean, or scrubbers wouldn't be necessary,

The scrubbers are not there because of the burning process being "unclean". The scrubbers are added because of the impurities in the coal besides pure carbon and hydrogen. Those impurities still exist in a gassified process and they are "cleaned" with their own process.

the gasification process is much hotter, much more like a catalytic converter temperature, and those same scrubbers wouldn't likely be in the mix.

The difference is the "scrubbing" is done before the final combustion instead of after wards. This still consumes energy and adds to the system inefficiency.

I really doubt those units are free, use no energy, require no maintenance and are not detrimental to overall efficiency.

No, in both systems, the units to clean up consume energy, cost money to build and maintain. The both contribute to the losses of each system.

Of course if the coal was near to a given city or there were an established rail connection for supplying coal, the pipeline and transmission issue would also not apply.

Every major city has rail. No major city wants a power plant, gas or coal, contributing to their overall pollution. Nearly every major city has some compromise already of nearby or adjecent power plants to balance cost.

I think power should be produced near where it is consumed

You think that because you don't understand the losses in moving fuel versus moving electrons.

I hate the uber-grid.

You are only suggesting replacing a electrical grid with a less efficient and more polluting pipeline grid.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

I don’t know, your flowchart looks pretty darn efficient to me. All those additional fuel/chemical byproducts and hydrogen, three sources of electric power.

The only thing missing was the use of leftover heat for heating the plant facilities, or as a marketable heat source for an adjacent industry.

CO2 sequestration is just so much crap. Those regulations need to be eliminated as AGW is an obvious hoax.

[thackney]

3 power generators and 7 major power consumers.

If the efficiencies you want to imply resulted in more power for less fuel (cost) it would be done today without tax payer subsidies. It is not because it is not; it cost mores.

While I agree about CO2 sequestration for global warming is junk, it has great use in enhanced oil recovery. In West Texas and some others places it is used to recover more oil from older fields.

[painter]

bump