Bird’s-Eye-View of Largest Floating Structure Ever Built(gcaptain.com)
gcaptain.com
Bird’s-Eye-View of Largest Floating Structure Ever Built
http://gcaptain.com/prelude-flng-taking-shape-birds-eye-view-of-largest-floating-structure-ever-built
9 comments
That thing belongs in a Neal Stephenson novel.
I imagine this is what software would look like if it were physical.
If this were physical software, I'd expect more of it to be on fire.
No, software is far more modular and rides on the top of a whale.
I was just going to write it, then I saw that you did already. Nice one :)
I couldn't resist...
http://vmashup.com/tQSLa38u
http://vmashup.com/tQSLa38u
Hey don´t worry! No Koreans where interviewed! They are "just building the ship".
The individual sections being loaded reminded me of the Borg ship.
Won't we run out of fossil fuels in like 50 years tops? Why make such an investment?
I am still, however, in awe of the magnitude of the project!
I am still, however, in awe of the magnitude of the project!
"Shell plans to moor the Prelude FLNG some 200 kilometers off western Australia at the Prelude gas field for 25 years, where it is expected to produce the equivalent of 110,000 BOE per day."
25 years < 50 years
25 years < 50 years
110000 BOE per day = 7.78 GW. An estimate from 2013 cited on Wikipedia claims the cost of the vessel is US$10.8 to 12.6 billion. Is there a reliable estimate of how much solar power you could install for the same cost?
You could get approximately 7.78 GW of solar installed for US$ 10.8 to 12.6 billion... the trouble is that this would be 7.78 peak GW. The corresponding average GW would depend on the location of the installation... in Perth, Australia, which has exceptionally good insolation, you might get 1.4-1.5 GW on average over a year. And then, you'd have no power on demand, you would have to take it when it is available, or waste it.
OTOH... the ~8 GW you mentioned is thermal power, if it is electricity you want, you will need to spend another $12-15 billion on power generation plants (and infrastructure such as LNG tankers, import terminals etc.). And then, with an exceptionally efficient combined cycle plant, you only get abt 8*55% = 4.4 GW of electric power (but it is "on demand").
Furthermore, the cost of producing the gas is not just the cost of the vessel - you need to drill wells and connect them to the vessel via pipelines/manifolds/risers. You need to pay for the operations, maintenance and repairs. And to begin with, you need to explore for gas, spending hundreds of millions of dollars with no guarantee of success.
By the time you consider the full picture, solar power is competitive with gas for electric power generation, more so in some places (like Australia, where Tony Abbott is going full retard on renewable energy) than others (like Germany, which leads the world in installed PV capacity).
OTOH... the ~8 GW you mentioned is thermal power, if it is electricity you want, you will need to spend another $12-15 billion on power generation plants (and infrastructure such as LNG tankers, import terminals etc.). And then, with an exceptionally efficient combined cycle plant, you only get abt 8*55% = 4.4 GW of electric power (but it is "on demand").
Furthermore, the cost of producing the gas is not just the cost of the vessel - you need to drill wells and connect them to the vessel via pipelines/manifolds/risers. You need to pay for the operations, maintenance and repairs. And to begin with, you need to explore for gas, spending hundreds of millions of dollars with no guarantee of success.
By the time you consider the full picture, solar power is competitive with gas for electric power generation, more so in some places (like Australia, where Tony Abbott is going full retard on renewable energy) than others (like Germany, which leads the world in installed PV capacity).
http://www.seia.org/research-resources/solar-industry-data
In 2012 something like 3.5 GW were installed for something like $12 billion USD.
See the graph titled "U.S. Solar Industry Forcast" for output
See the graph titled "Value of Yearly U.S. Solar Instalations" for cost
Personally, I hope that the US solar instalations will last more than 25 years. I also hope that Shell is paying Australia for the gass that is being pumped out. I presume that the total cost will be about the same as solar. However, natural gass is really usefull stuff and can be shipped and stored more efficiently than electricity. So even though the price is about the same as solar, the value is higher.
In 2012 something like 3.5 GW were installed for something like $12 billion USD.
See the graph titled "U.S. Solar Industry Forcast" for output
See the graph titled "Value of Yearly U.S. Solar Instalations" for cost
Personally, I hope that the US solar instalations will last more than 25 years. I also hope that Shell is paying Australia for the gass that is being pumped out. I presume that the total cost will be about the same as solar. However, natural gass is really usefull stuff and can be shipped and stored more efficiently than electricity. So even though the price is about the same as solar, the value is higher.
Do you know what they're quoting as capacity?
Installed capacity would seem to suggest peak MW. Later on in the report they say that 490MW of "combined electric capacity" in schools equates to 642 GWh, which suggests that they're figuring annual output to be about 15% of installed capacity.
So, is that 3.5GW of panels (in which case about 0.5GW averaged over a day) or 3.5GW of average capacity?
Installed capacity would seem to suggest peak MW. Later on in the report they say that 490MW of "combined electric capacity" in schools equates to 642 GWh, which suggests that they're figuring annual output to be about 15% of installed capacity.
So, is that 3.5GW of panels (in which case about 0.5GW averaged over a day) or 3.5GW of average capacity?
> I also hope that Shell is paying Australia for the gass that is being pumped out.
Why? Australia doesn't hold title to the oceans.
Why? Australia doesn't hold title to the oceans.
This area is being jointly developed by Australia and East Timor, I believe.
200 miles is standard for an Exclusive Economic Zone.
200 miles is standard for an Exclusive Economic Zone.
Prelude is not near East Timor, you may be thinking of Sunrise.
See eg. : http://www.smh.com.au/business/woodside-petroleum-calls-for-...
See eg. : http://www.smh.com.au/business/woodside-petroleum-calls-for-...
Who ownes title to the oceans though? Sure as hell Shell does not!
In Australia? Not nearly the same leagues of magnitude.
We won't empty the earth of fossil fuels, but when fields reaches negative ROI/EROEI they are no longer worked. It is likely in the not to distant future that oil prices will rise or production fall. (Added: This is why the tarsands are worked now; they weren't economical in the $10/barrel era).
To put things in perspective. This vessel is planned to extract 110,000 barrels per day. The world currently consumes 85-90 million barrels per day. In other words, this vessel will supply 0.1% of the current demand for oil.
To put things in perspective. This vessel is planned to extract 110,000 barrels per day. The world currently consumes 85-90 million barrels per day. In other words, this vessel will supply 0.1% of the current demand for oil.
This is also natural gas and not oil. They're very different markets and usages.
Ah, yes. The BOE got me confused..
Calculation makeover: We consume about 50 million BOE of natural gas per day[1], so this vessel will fulfill 0.2% of the current demand.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_natural_g...
Calculation makeover: We consume about 50 million BOE of natural gas per day[1], so this vessel will fulfill 0.2% of the current demand.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_natural_g...
Of total gas production, yes. However, LNG is a different story.
Unless I'm doing the math wrong (which is quite possible), this facility alone will produce ~2% global LNG production. (This facility has a capacity of up to 5.3 mmtpa, while global production of LNG in 2014 was 246 mmtpa.)
I'm not saying it's dwarfing global supply, but a single facility producing 2% of the global output is a pretty big deal.
Of course, global LNG output will probably be significantly higher by the time this facility comes on-line, and 5.3 mtpa is its maximum production.
At any rate, it doesn't really detract from what you were saying overall, but this is a very major player in the LNG market.
Unless I'm doing the math wrong (which is quite possible), this facility alone will produce ~2% global LNG production. (This facility has a capacity of up to 5.3 mmtpa, while global production of LNG in 2014 was 246 mmtpa.)
I'm not saying it's dwarfing global supply, but a single facility producing 2% of the global output is a pretty big deal.
Of course, global LNG output will probably be significantly higher by the time this facility comes on-line, and 5.3 mtpa is its maximum production.
At any rate, it doesn't really detract from what you were saying overall, but this is a very major player in the LNG market.
We won't run out of natural gas resources any time soon. This is to produce and liquify "stranded" natural gas resources.
Methane is _much_ more abundant than liquid hydrocarbons. There are many more ways to produce methane geologically/biologically than there are to produce liquid hydrocarbons.
To elaborate, there are three main end-member types of source rocks (organic-rich shales, etc that produce hydrocarbons when heated). All of them will produce methane once temperatures are high enough. However, only two of these are capable of producing oil at all, and that's only in a relatively narrow window of temperatures. Furthermore, type III source rocks (land-derived organics) are the most abundant of the three types, and they only produce gas.
Interestingly, if you look at current proven global reserves, you'll find they don't reflect the difference in abundance. (~1.7 trillion barrels liquids vs. ~1.2 trillion barrels oil-equivalent of gas) This is because exploration and development focuses on the more profitable liquid hydrocarbons.
There are several _huge_ gas fields (>100 TCF... That's mind-blowingly large) that have been discovered but never appraised, developed, or produced. There's a lot of others that are likely to be of a similar size but have never been drilled at all. The reason is purely due to the way oil and gas are traded.
From an economic perspective, natural gas (methane) is typically sold on long-term contracts. There's no global market for natural gas. It's not a commodity. Instead, all trading is region-specific. You can only sell what you can deliver, and natural gas has to be delivered through pipelines.
Therefore, if the natural gas resources are not close to a heavily populated area, you can't sell them. These are referred to as "stranded".
LNG (liquified natural gas), however, can be (and is starting to be) sold globally as a commodity similar to liquid hydrocarbons. Southeast Asia and Japan have a large demand for natural gas and relatively limited supply. Furthermore, the gap between demand and supply is predicted to grow over the coming decades.
Australia has large "stranded" gas fields that Chevron and Shell have held rights to for many decades. Australia also happens to be close to the markets with the greatest predicted demand for LNG. Based on this, the super-majors (Exxon, Chevron, Shell, BP, Total) have started to pour _huge_ amounts of money into LNG facilities. Australia is currently home to the largest of these projects due to its location relative to markets with the largest demand.
At any rate, there's the big picture in a nutshell. I'm a exploration geologist in the oil industry, so I have a slightly different perspective than some, but hopefully that gives you some idea of the reasons behind projects like this.
Methane is _much_ more abundant than liquid hydrocarbons. There are many more ways to produce methane geologically/biologically than there are to produce liquid hydrocarbons.
To elaborate, there are three main end-member types of source rocks (organic-rich shales, etc that produce hydrocarbons when heated). All of them will produce methane once temperatures are high enough. However, only two of these are capable of producing oil at all, and that's only in a relatively narrow window of temperatures. Furthermore, type III source rocks (land-derived organics) are the most abundant of the three types, and they only produce gas.
Interestingly, if you look at current proven global reserves, you'll find they don't reflect the difference in abundance. (~1.7 trillion barrels liquids vs. ~1.2 trillion barrels oil-equivalent of gas) This is because exploration and development focuses on the more profitable liquid hydrocarbons.
There are several _huge_ gas fields (>100 TCF... That's mind-blowingly large) that have been discovered but never appraised, developed, or produced. There's a lot of others that are likely to be of a similar size but have never been drilled at all. The reason is purely due to the way oil and gas are traded.
From an economic perspective, natural gas (methane) is typically sold on long-term contracts. There's no global market for natural gas. It's not a commodity. Instead, all trading is region-specific. You can only sell what you can deliver, and natural gas has to be delivered through pipelines.
Therefore, if the natural gas resources are not close to a heavily populated area, you can't sell them. These are referred to as "stranded".
LNG (liquified natural gas), however, can be (and is starting to be) sold globally as a commodity similar to liquid hydrocarbons. Southeast Asia and Japan have a large demand for natural gas and relatively limited supply. Furthermore, the gap between demand and supply is predicted to grow over the coming decades.
Australia has large "stranded" gas fields that Chevron and Shell have held rights to for many decades. Australia also happens to be close to the markets with the greatest predicted demand for LNG. Based on this, the super-majors (Exxon, Chevron, Shell, BP, Total) have started to pour _huge_ amounts of money into LNG facilities. Australia is currently home to the largest of these projects due to its location relative to markets with the largest demand.
At any rate, there's the big picture in a nutshell. I'm a exploration geologist in the oil industry, so I have a slightly different perspective than some, but hopefully that gives you some idea of the reasons behind projects like this.
> Why make such an investment?
Interesting question. Why would anyone invest in helping to bring about catastrophic climate changes?
Interesting question. Why would anyone invest in helping to bring about catastrophic climate changes?
I think this another instance of focussed short-term financial benefits winning out over distributed longer-term catastrophic costs. Not surprising, but certainly dispiriting.
All I read from that article was the word "liquid". I'll get my popcorn ready for when that ship gets a haul breach.
LNG quickly becomes a gas when leaked -- you won't see dramatic environmental disasters like with crude oil.
It's also not flammable or explosive in its liquid form, so I suspect you won't see a dramatic explosive failure either.
Of course, it could start leaking and burn when mixed with enough air, but I can't help but wonder how sustainable a fire that would be: The air/fuel mix would not be controlled at all, and would probably quickly burn and stop.
It's also not flammable or explosive in its liquid form, so I suspect you won't see a dramatic explosive failure either.
Of course, it could start leaking and burn when mixed with enough air, but I can't help but wonder how sustainable a fire that would be: The air/fuel mix would not be controlled at all, and would probably quickly burn and stop.
Try googling "lng explosion". It is cold, so is denser than air and spreads out on the surface, and when ignited goes off with a big bang.
I guess there are some artificial floating islands that could lay claim to being the largest or longest, too (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_island#Artificial_i...)