Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Strictly: Drilling and oil-field services -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Second_Titan who wrote (81936)	12/17/2000 11:36:26 AM
From: Think4Yourself	Respond to of 95453

I agree that it doesn't make sense for the power companies to have ordered dual fuel turbines. The NG problems are not a true (running out of NG in the ground) shortage but rather a shortage caused by circumstances. Once drilling stabilizes at the new (much higher) required levels there will be plenty of NG available. This appears to be the basic argument of the bears, that there is plenty of NG in the ground. What the bears are not seeing is that it will take time to get the wells drilled and the infrastructure set up. By the time enough wells are drilled the ones drilled at the start of this cycle will be needing rework and replacement due to the higher depletion rates of the newer technology. The bears just look at the price and arbitrarily say it's too high, not sustainable, etc. The fact that this argument has been used as prices have continued to rise shows it's inherent irrelevance. I don't think drilling will be the only solution. I believe we will need more NG transmisison capability before this problem will truly go away. I also believe California's energy problems are different from those faced by the rest of the nation. California's problems are being caused by an incredibly high level of incompetence by the government, especially the legislature. They believe in whatever happens to be convenient for them, which has not been the facts for many years. Their problems are of their own making, and I suspect their neighbors are starting to get sick of having to cover for California's ineptness. The idea that the federally operated BPA has to sacrifice Salmon populations and risk flooding on the Columbia river while California hydro plants sit idle highlights the ineptness of California's government. You will, of course, never hear anything about this on the news. The ineptness of California's government does not extend to the residents. Most are blissfully unaware of what is happening.

To: Second_Titan who wrote (81936)	12/17/2000 4:05:24 PM
From: Frank	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 95453

Que-your response to Doug Fant's question on dual fuel capability for the new turbines may be the most important of the last hundred posts. The fact these new turbines are not dual fuel is not recognized even by the EIA. I recently read an EIA report which boldly stated utilities could just shift to oil if NG got too expensive.The expense of the dual option has been a determining factor--as you rightly point out. In essence the vast bulk of upwards of 70,000 MW of new generation in 2000-2001 is NOT dual fuel capable. This is a crucial factor that is only now sinking in to many energy analysts-Frank

To: Second_Titan who wrote (81936)	12/17/2000 7:39:52 PM
From: dfloydr	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 95453

That fuel oil option has either an economic or an environmental price attached. Either you have to use very fine fuel grades or throw in additives to keep the impurities from adhering to the turbine blades. In the first case you pay a premium for fuel: in the second you throw a lot of gunk out the back end into the air. If you do not, the gunk builds up on the blades and you blow up the turbine. I was once director of a company that used to make the additives used. The stuff we made was used mostly in Brown Bovari turbines on oil pipelines in the Middle East where the fuel used was the crude itself, taken out of the line. Needless to say, these were particularly dirty set ups. But where else do you get power to drive crude through a pipeline when you are miles from any normal power source.

To: Second_Titan who wrote (81936)	12/18/2000 12:41:22 AM
From: Douglas V. Fant	Respond to of 95453

Quehubo007, You raise a good point. PIFUA I believe requires any application to FRC for a new base load power generating facility to demonstrate fuel switching capability. Yet as you point out, most new facilities announced will run on NG alone. That makes me think that these new combined cycles must all be claiming to be peaking generating facilities in order to avoid that "dual fuel" requirement. But peaking or baseload cumulatively, these new power plants will add, I estimated about four months ago 7 BCF/day to NG demand in North America. Solid demand for NG way out for years. Quehubo- what is a reasonable estimated life span of a combined cycle power plant?