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 : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: akmike who wrote (157407)	9/21/2011 2:17:38 AM
From: raybiese	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206085

Mike: Extreme cold can have a big effect on opex of any facility if it shuts it down. Dealing with the cold increases capex in many ways. Cold weather design & operation is a core competency in places like Alberta. Northern Alaska is another notch up. While extending the useful life of the TAPS may be desirable that isn't really the issue for deciding a site for GTL (or even LNG). The problem of monetizing stranded gas has been around for many years. GTL needs a cheap feedstock that will be flowing for at least two decades. LNG & methanol are the conventional options. Hopefully in the future we will see more options. GTL (like a greenfield refinery) is very capital intensive. Shell's Pearl in Qatar was $18-$19 billion for 140,000 bbl/day liquid product (plus NGL's & ethane) versus the nameplate 2.1 million bbl/day for TAPS. 48" is a big freakin pipe. Filling a significant fraction of it with GTL product could easily have a $100 billion price tag. Ray