We have tabulated the costs of constructing an LNG-fuelling station for road vehicles across 55 distinct cost-lines, based on data from a dozen sites in Europe. Total capex will average €1M/site. Effectively, this is a $250/tpa re-gasification plant. Overall, we estimate distributing LNG to road-consumers will add $10/mcf to the costs of gas-fuel. Around 30% of the capex costs are specifically linked to LNG, and could be slim-lined for a CNG-only fuelling station.
This data-file tabulates the maintenance costs incurred by a fleet of 42x CNG-powered trucks, over 16M miles in the United States. Maintenance costs averaged 8c/mile, of which 1.6c/mile (i.e., 20%) was specifically attributed to running on CNG. Specifically, gas spark plugs must be replaced every 60,000 miles, niche maintenance operations are more expensive and in one instance, the truck engines were damaged by ‘wet fuel’.
The 240MTpa shipping-fuels market will be disrupted from 2020, under IMO sulphur regulations. Hence, this data-file breaks down the world’s 100,000-vessel shipping fleet into 13 distinct categories. Fuel consumption is estimated for each category. Distributions of weight and LNG fuel-equivalence are split for the four largest categories. We see 40-60MTpa upside to LNG demand from 2040, led by cruise-ships and large container-ships.
The data-file also includes helpful background on the marine fuels industry and consensus forecasts for LNG demand growth within it (below).
We estimate that a dual-fuel shale rig, running on in-basin natural gas would save $2,300/day (or c$30k/well), compared to a typical diesel rig. This is after a >20% IRR on the rig’s upgrade costs. The economics make sense. However, converting the entire Permian rig count to run on gas would only absorb c100mmcfd: not much of a dent in c1bcfd of flaring, as 2020 gas bottlenecks bite. This model shows all our workings.
This 8-page report outlines the ‘four goals’ of Thunder Said Energy; and how we hope we can help your process…
This file will give a helpful overview of the different process technologies, which are used in LNG liquefaction: APCI, APX (Exxon), Optimised Cascade (Conoco), Fluid Cascade (Equinor), DMR, SMR, PRICO (Golar) and MMLS (Shell, small-scale). For each one, we summarise how it works, advantages and disadvantages, plus typical train sizes, energy efficiencies, examples and involved-companies. We also touch on applicability for FLNG and small-scale LNG.
A 2.5MTpa Floating LNG vessel using the Golar/PRICO process would cost c$700/tpa, or $1.1/mcfe. A $2.5/mcf liquefaction-spread is therefore needed for a 10% return. The key economic risk is ‘uptime’. This file contains our workings; including cost-estimates across 17-categories, such as compressors, heat-exchangers, vessel-costs, et al. Costs are compared for smaller-scale and onshore plants in later tabs.
This model breaks down 2050 and 2100’s global energy market, based on a dozen core input assumptions.
You can ‘flex’ these assumptions, to see how it will affect future oil, coal and gas demand, as well as global carbon emissions.
We are positive on renewables, but fossil fuels retain a central role, particularly natural gas, which could ‘treble’ in our base case.
A fully decarbonised energy market is possible by 2100, but we advocate game-changing technologies that can accelerate the pace.
What are the top technologies to transform the global energy industry and the world? This data-file summarises where we have conducted differentiated analysis, across c50 technologies (and counting).
For each technology, we summarise the opportunity in two-lines. Then we score its economic impact, its technical maturity (TRL), and the depth of our work to-date. The output is a ranking of the top technologies, by category.
Download this data-file and you will also receive updates for a year, as we add more technologies; and we will also be happy to dig into any technologies you would like to see added to the list.