RE: Energy sources in the next 20 years

From: Glenn Morton <glennmorton@entouch.net>
Date: Tue Jan 13 2004 - 19:01:25 EST

> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
> Behalf Of Al Koop
> Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 11:20 AM
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: RE: Energy sources in the next 20 years
>
>
> Glenn Morton wrote:
>
> The first thing which will attempt to replace oil will be LNG (liquified
> natural gas). The entire industry has gone gaga over building the
> plants. There is a fair amount of stranded natural gas, but it is
> stranded because it costs too much to build the pipelines.
>
> AK:
>
> I read that there are large amounts of natural gas in Russia and the
> Middle East. I understand that the US has four LNG processing
> facilities in LA, MA, MD and SC. Getting it here also requires some
> expensive transport ships. So are we currently building more ships and
> processing plants? How much more does a thousand cubic feet of natural
> gas cost if imported as LNG instead of coming from a local pipeline?

I don't know. I have done some things in the area, but that cost has
escaped me.

>
> Also it seems like it should be possible to make fertilizer at the site
> of the natural gas wells and ship the fertilizer to the US and other
> countries. But I read in one of Matthew Simmons slides for one of his
> talks that is presented on his website, that there are problems with
> making fertilzer on site (or at least in the same country). What are
> the problems with this?

Transportation costs and facilities cost. To be competitive, the facility
must be huge. Locating a plant near the field, limits the supply of gas and
thus the cost efficiency of the process.
Received on Tue Jan 13 19:02:09 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jan 13 2004 - 19:02:09 EST