|
Mercury_Storm posted:The price went down a bit below 10 bucks in 1998, I guess they're factoring in inflation for the worst-cast-scenario? I actually remember that. Gas around me was $.73/gallon at one point. 18-year old me was pretty happy about it.
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 02:56 |
|
|
How much of demand for oil is consumer/car based, and how much is industry based? Because if the former dominates demand, I can see it taking 5+ years to shake off habits accrued during the "gas is 3-4$ a gallon era" and that is going to have quite the impact.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:How much of demand for oil is consumer/car based, and how much is industry based? Here's the numbers I'm seeing: (A barrel makes 45 gallons of petroleum products)  So it depends what you mean by "industry" exactly but the vast majority is gasoline & diesel.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Here's the numbers I'm seeing:
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
Cicero posted:So let's say that 20 years from now, electric cars/trucks dominate the market and so demand for gasoline and diesel is way down. Can you increase the % of the barrel that you use for other products? Or is that relatively fixed due to chemical composition? Not a chemical engineer, but as far as I know the contents of the barrel are uniform, so you can use it all on jet fuel or plastics if you want.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Here's the numbers I'm seeing: I'm just thinking that people have become alot more conscious about behaving in ways that reduce the amount of gas they consume (carpooling, living closer to work, keeping tires inflated, better mileage in cars) and these habits are unlikely to disappear. Have analogous habits popped up amongst industrial consumers of gasoline (truckers, shippers etc) as well?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:Some analysts were bandying around $15/bbl as the possible low, but commodity analysts have been wrong so often that that number is probably only a little better than a wild rear end guess. I can't imagine the price hitting such lows before OPEC (or just Saudi Arabia) agrees to scale back production so they don't go bankrupt.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
Saudi Arabia is actually investing in solar so they can sell more oil rather than use it domestically: http://cleantechnica.com/2012/11/25/saudi-arabia-investing-109-billion-into-solar-energy-wants-13-of-electricity-from-solar-by-2032/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/07/saudis-solar-energy/395315/
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:I'm just thinking that people have become alot more conscious about behaving in ways that reduce the amount of gas they consume (carpooling, living closer to work, keeping tires inflated, better mileage in cars) and these habits are unlikely to disappear. Have analogous habits popped up amongst industrial consumers of gasoline (truckers, shippers etc) as well? Yes, if anything businesses are more concerned with doing that because they want to minimize their costs whenever possible. There's an entire sub-field dedicated to minimizing the amount of distance (and hence fuel) travelled by cargo trucks, for example. It might be less of a focus because of falling fuel prices, but it's still a major part of their costs (and there's still labor costs to consider, so minimizing time = minimizing money).
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Not a chemical engineer, but as far as I know the contents of the barrel are uniform, so you can use it all on jet fuel or plastics if you want. The components aren't uniform, but the short answer is yes, probably. The long answer is that crude is composed of various different hydrocarbons, along with impurities that have to be processed out safely. This also varies with the source reservoir, so WTI isn't processed exactly the same as Saudi oil. A fraction of the components in crude are, say, jet fuel to begin with, those are simply separated out without being chemically altered. Some other fraction may be paraffins or other longer hydrocarbons which you can crack to gasoline / other stuff, if you're willing to pay for the necessary infrastructure. Like most things with oil, it's more of an economic feasibility question. Edit: RIP Linn http://ir.linnenergy.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=953515 metasynthetic fucked around with this message at 01:55 on Feb 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Or maybe never in the case of airplanes, if there is no groundbreaking development in battery technology to improve their energy density. Energy density of the powering source is way more important for airplanes than it is for cars. It's really, really easy to underestimate just how energy-dense that hydrocarbon fuels are. Batteries and solar panels are piss-ant poo poo compared to a big tank of JP1 powering a turbine. Almost all large-scale electrical balancing systems use something like pumped hydro, compressed air, or molten salt because trying to store that much electicity in a battery is loving stupid. I was on the very bleeding edge of powering model aircraft with electric, and it only really became workable about 15 years ago even at small scale (high-quality name-brand NiMH cells for high-discharge applications, LiPo for higher capacity but reduced discharge). Nowadays the tech is real solid for model-scale airplanes (barring the really big 50cc type stuff) but even still you can't beat the endurance and power of nitro aircraft. You need a more and more energy-dense powertrain the larger the plane gets. Sanyo 1950mah 4/5A FAUP cells, rated at up to 45A on the sticker and would tolerate being discharged at up to 70A in practice (i.e. 23-36C discharge). And the Mega 16/15/3 would eat up whatever you could feed it 
Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 02:13 on Feb 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
Cicero posted:So let's say that 20 years from now, electric cars/trucks dominate the market and so demand for gasoline and diesel is way down. Can you increase the % of the barrel that you use for other products? Or is that relatively fixed due to chemical composition? You can absolutely produce different amounts of products from the same barrel of crude. In fact, this is already done every day at every refinery. If you were to do a straight run distillation of a barrel of crude, the products would not match up with their demand. That's why refineries are so drat big - there are a ton of different units that convert one class of hydrocarbons to another based on market conditions. Obviously at some point you will run up against some kind of physical or economic constraint but you can absolutely produce a lot less gasoline/diesel in order to produce a lot more kerosene (jet fuel), for instance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 02:09
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:It's really, really easy to underestimate just how energy-dense that hydrocarbon fuels are. Batteries and solar panels are piss-ant poo poo compared to a big tank of JP1 powering a turbine. Almost all large-scale electrical balancing systems use something like pumped hydro, compressed air, or molten salt because trying to store that much electicity in a battery is loving stupid. I've seen some really powerful electric setups for even the big 100cc+ planes since the motors themselves have a pretty good power to weight ratio, but yeah gas still has a pretty big advantage in endurance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 03:58
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:I've seen some really powerful electric setups for even the big 100cc+ planes since the motors themselves have a pretty good power to weight ratio, but yeah gas still has a pretty big advantage in endurance. I'm sure it's come a long, long way. Way back when the only chance of doing that was an Inner Demon gearbox to gear two massive (and expensive) Hacker motors together. I once saw a 0.40-sized NASA demo airplane fly at my local airfield about 14 years ago - it had a single giant Hacker motor and a massive battery pack that was probably something like 3P8S sub-C NiMH cells. Way beyond what I could field of course, and even so the endurance was indeed garbage. Like 10 or 15 minutes tops, even given that they were nursing it along. My first plane was a foam Cessna replica with a Graupner 600 motor using repurposed car sub-C packs, circa 2000. Barely flew, but it was a hell of a time for experimentation in terms of figuring out a way to make that loving powertrain work right. Ended up using a Kyosho Magnetic Mayhem car motor at way over the stock voltage, at which point it made a decent sailplane in moderate winds. Then circa 2003 I went to a Zagi-style airplane (the Bird of Prey to be precise). Brushless right from the start, originally a Mega 16/15/4 with 1800 mah HeCells. I eventually tried KAN 1100 cells in a high-voltage pack, but it ended up being too light and didn't deliver the current the label claimed it did. Took a gamble and tried a single top-shelf Sanyo pack and welp, double the current on the pack. Going to a 16/15/3 moved me from the "reasonable performance" into "unlimited vertical" territory and the packs lasted literally 5+ years despite being abused like poo poo. They probably would work right now if I cycled them a couple times. I used to get laughed out of the field for flying "toys" since I had a Sig Kadet. Nowadays there's more electric than gas flyers. Also, I put my spare 16/15/4 on a tiny model that can hit 70+ mph. It was the fastest thing on the field as of about 5 years ago. I've been thinking about getting back into it with a "diesel-electric" style model where power is generated in a small motor which provides power to the other motors. In theory, you can use brushless motors and if you wire them directly to another identical motor they'll spin at 1:1. You could do some cool multi-engine historical/scale models like that if you could keep the nitro motor cool. Bringing it back to the thread - I'm much more optimistic about pretty much any energy storage/transportation tech besides batteries. Like, fixing alternate fuels from atmospheric carbon might well have a better overall performance ratio if we optimized that, since you are transporting a much smaller volume and/or weight of fuel. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 04:49 on Feb 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 04:23
|
|
|
Mercury_Storm posted:Saudi Arabia is actually investing in solar so they can sell more oil rather than use it domestically: Considering that their domestic oil consumption has grown from 1,5 million barrels to 3 million barrels during 2000-2013, at that rate by 2030 they'll be burning somewhere north of 5 million barrels/day domestically.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 06:45
|
|
|
From the Middle East thread:Count Roland posted:So Saudi Arabia and Russia just agreed to something. How significant is this?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
Peel posted:From the Middle East thread: How significant is this? [/quote] Lol Russia is already at the maximum of their output and can't increase it due to the fact that they need Western technology to develop new fields and sanctions prevent that. Secondly, Iran is not going to play along and how would Iraq stop increasing production, I think their oil companies are not government controlled?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
Peel posted:From the Middle East thread: How significant is this? [/quote] Of those nations the only people who could possibly increase production at all are the Qataris and the Saudis, and Qatar is not a market shaking player. Venezuela's production is actually dropping because they have corrupt idiots running their oil industry, so they probably signed on because Russia or Saudi threw some cash their way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
Yeah, this isn't a huge deal. If Iran and Iraq continue to dump oil on the market then we're going to see this glut continue. Also note that no one is agreeing to cut production here, they're just freezing it. And like everyone's saying, that doesn't mean much from countries that are already tapped.
Paradoxish fucked around with this message at 16:14 on Feb 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
Its specifically a very bad deal, if you were hoping for any of them to actually do anything. As everyone has already pointed out they really don't have the power to do anything and were hoping saying this would at least improve the price but its done the opposite as Brent has lost over $3 a barrel since the announcement. All this announcement has shown is that they are powerless, which will potentially destabilise the markets further.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:It's really, really easy to underestimate just how energy-dense that hydrocarbon fuels are. Batteries and solar panels are piss-ant poo poo compared to a big tank of JP1 powering a turbine. Almost all large-scale electrical balancing systems use something like pumped hydro, compressed air, or molten salt because trying to store that much electicity in a battery is loving stupid. People also don't really appreciate how powerful large aircraft are. Takeoff power of a large passenger jet is on the order of 100-200 megawatts with a "M". That's like the entire power output of a (nuclear reactor powered) aircraft carrier, in a few packages small enough to tuck under the wing. The power to weight ratio of gas turbine engines is outstanding
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
Morbus posted:People also don't really appreciate how powerful large aircraft are. Takeoff power of a large passenger jet is on the order of 100-200 megawatts with a "M". That's like the entire power output of a (nuclear reactor powered) aircraft carrier, in a few packages small enough to tuck under the wing. The power to weight ratio of gas turbine engines is outstanding I'm going way off topic here but it's something I wondered about recently, is there some simple approximation to convert the rated thrust of jet airplanes into a power output figure? Or is that power output figure calculated some other way?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:I'm going way off topic here but it's something I wondered about recently, is there some simple approximation to convert the rated thrust of jet airplanes into a power output figure? Or is that power output figure calculated some other way? From a probably overly simple mechanical viewpoint, power is force times velocity. So if you have thrust measured in Newtons, you can multiply by airspeed to get power in Watts. Convert to horsepower at your leisure.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
Gas going for under $1.50, I've never seen it so cheap in my life. How low can it feasibly go?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 03:14
|
|
|
Rahm is 16 years old, suddenly things make sense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:I'm going way off topic here but it's something I wondered about recently, is there some simple approximation to convert the rated thrust of jet airplanes into a power output figure? Or is that power output figure calculated some other way? Here, GE will sell you the same engines for power plants
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 05:31
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Gas going for under $1.50, I've never seen it so cheap in my life. How low can it feasibly go? Adjusted for inflation, it's cheaper than it was 50 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 05:57
|
|
|
redscare posted:Adjusted for inflation, it's cheaper than it was 50 years ago. Exactly how far are we from the cheapest ever?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 06:02
|
|
|
Apparently the cheapest historically in 2015 dollars was $1.48 in 1998.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
Lote posted:Apparently the cheapest historically in 2015 dollars was $1.48 in 1998.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
Cicero posted:And right now it's around $1.70. So, fairly close. I can go onto the rez and fill up tax-free for $1.40~ some a gallon. I've never seen gas so cheap in my life; thank god mileage reimbursement rates aren't adjusted on a frequent basis.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 07:17
|
|
|
spoon0042 posted:Rahm is 16 years old, suddenly things make sense. lmao I remember it hitting $.88 in San Antonio in the mid-late 90's, but the lowest I ever paid was probably $.95.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 07:32
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:I'm going way off topic here but it's something I wondered about recently, is there some simple approximation to convert the rated thrust of jet airplanes into a power output figure? Or is that power output figure calculated some other way? Power is work over time, and work is force times distance, so there's a variety of ways you calculate power because of the way these units interact. velocity is distance over time so F*V works. engines are also frequently rated by torque*angular velocity of the drive shaft.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 07:43
|
|
|
There's an EIA presentation on CSPAN 1 right now about future projected demand and supply growth in the world liquids supply. EIA still projects 1.5-2 million barrels per day demand growth year-over-year for 2016 and 2017. Not sure how firm that projection is, nor is EIA.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 02:56 |
|
|
Analyst forecast: $30 = single-digit profitability for rigs, $35 = double-digit profitability for rigs If prices go up, wells will be drilled. What is likely to be seen for the next decade is for prices to be within a trading band between $30-$40, assuming 1.5-2 million barrel per day demand increase year over year. If demand increases are lower than projected, price band could be lower than forecast.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 17:16
|
|