Faculty of Arts,
Chulalongkorn University
2202313
Translation: English-Thai
Argumentative
Text (English-Thai) Discussion
The translations given on this page are neither
comprehensive nor definitive. They are here to give you an idea
of the range of possibilities and to spark discussion.
Suggestions and comments are welcome. |
We
keep hearing about the benefits of natural gas– burning it releases less
CO2 than oil and coal, it burns with few impurities, so does not cause
much pollution. We also hear about the possibilities of releasing huge
amounts of new natural gas supplies from “fracking” the ground. Reported
reserves for natural gas are also high, especially in Russia.
However, counting on natural gas to solve the world’s energy problems is
like “counting your chickens before they hatch”. Extracting natural gas
requires a lot of infrastructure in order for anything to “happen”.
Consequently, it needs a lot of up-front investment, and several years
delay. It also needs changes on the consumption side (requiring further
investment) to enable this natural gas to be used. If the cost is higher
than competing fuels, this becomes another problem.
In many ways, natural gas consumption is dependent on the state of the
economy: an economy that is industrializing rapidly will easily consume
more natural gas, but an economy in decline will find it hard to afford
new ways of doing with natural gas what was done previously with oil.
Another argument is that increased use of intermittent renewables such as
wind power calls for additional use of natural gas as backup. But even
this is unlikely to make natural gas the planet’s savior, because in many
parts of the world, natural gas is an imported and therefore high-price
fuel. Moreover, political instability, often linked to high oil
prices, creates a poor atmosphere for government’s investing heavily in
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) facilities.
Translation
1: Sample for Critique
เราได้ยินเกี่ยวกับข้อดีของก๊าซธรรมชาติอยู่เสมอ
เช่น
การเผาไหม้ก๊าซธรรมชาติปล่อยก๊าซคาร์บอนไดออกไซด์ออกมาในปริมาณน้อยกว่าการเผาไหม้
น้ำมันและถ่านหิน
หรือก๊าซธรรมชาติเผาไหม้โดยก่อให้เกิดสารปนเปื้อนน้อย
จึงไม่ทำให้เกิดมลพิษมาก
เรายังได้ยินว่ามีความเป็นไปได้ที่จะนำทรัพยากรก๊าซธรรมชาติปริมาณมหาศาลจากแหล่ง
ใหม่ ๆ ออกมาใช้โดยใช้วิธี "แฟรกกิง" พื้นดิน นอกจากนี้
มีรายงานเรื่องแหล่งที่มีปริมาณก๊าซธรรมชาติสำรองสูงมากด้วย
โดยเฉพาะอย่างยิ่งในประเทศรัสเซีย
อย่างไรก็ตาม
การหวังพึ่งก๊าซธรรมชาติในการแก้ไขปัญหาพลังงานโลกก็เหมือนกับ
"ไม่เห็นน้ำตัดกระบอก"
การขุดเจาะก๊าซธรรมชาติจำเป็นต้องอาศัยโครงสร้างพื้นฐานหลายประการเพื่อที่จะให้เห็น
ผลขึ้นมาบ้าง ด้วยเหตุนี้
การแยกก๊าซธรรมชาติจึงต้องมีการลงทุนล่วงหน้าอย่างมาก
และต้องรอเวลาไปอีกหลายปีจึงจะเห็นผล นอกจากนี้
ยังต้องมีการเปลี่ยนแปลงในด้านผู้บริโภคพลังงาน
(ซึ่งต้องลงทุนต่อไปอีก) เพื่อที่จะนำก๊าซไปใช้ได้
หากต้นทุนก๊าซธรรมชาติสูงกว่าต้นทุนเชื้อเพลิงชนิดอื่น ๆ แล้ว
นี่ก็จะกลายเป็นปัญหาอีกเรื่องหนึ่ง
การบริโภคก๊าซธรรมชาตินั้น ในหลาย ๆ
แง่ยังขึ้นอยู่กับสภาพเศรษฐกิจ กล่าวคือ
เศรษฐกิจที่กำลังมีการขยายตัวทางอุตสาหกรรมอย่างรวดเร็วจะใช้ก๊าซธรรมชาติมากขึ้นได้
โดยง่าย
แต่เศรษฐกิจที่กำลังชะลอตัวจะเห็นว่ายากจะลงทุนหาวิธีใหม่ ๆ
เพื่อที่จะนำก๊าซธรรมชาติมาใช้ จากเดิมที่เคยใช้น้ำมัน
เหตุผลอีกประการหนึ่งก็คือการใช้พลังงานหมุนเวียนประเภทแปรปรวนเพิ่มขึ้น
เช่น พลังงานลม
ทำให้ต้องใช้ก๊าซธรรมชาติเพิ่มขึ้นเป็นพลังงานสำรอง
แต่กระนั้นนี่ก็ไม่ได้จะทำให้ก๊าซธรรมชาติมาช่วยกู้โลกให้พ้นจากปัญหาพลังงานไปได้
เพราะสำหรับประเทศในภูมิภาคต่าง ๆ
จำนวนมากก๊าซธรรมชาติเป็นพลังงานนำเข้าจึงเป็นเชื้อเพลิงราคาแพง
นอกจากนี้การขาดเสถียรภาพทางการเมืองซึ่งมักเกี่ยวข้องกับราคา
น้ำมันที่แพง
ทำให้เกิดบรรยากาศที่ไม่เอื้อให้รัฐบาลลงทุนเงินจำนวนมากในโรงงานก๊าซธรรมชาติเหลว
(แอลเอ็นจี)
|
Reference
Discussion
- Expression: counting your chickens before they hatch
- ไม่เห็นน้ำตัดกระบอก ไม่เห็นกระรอกโก่งหน้าไม้
- หวังน้ำบ่อหน้า
- ไก่กับไข่อะไรเกิดก่อนกัน
Vocabulary
- impurities –
- สารพิษ
- สิ่งสกปรก
- สารเจือปน
- สารปนเปื้อน
- สิ่งที่ไม่บริสุทธิ์
- fracking –
Source
Tverberg, Gail. "Why
Natural Gas Isn't Likely to Solve Your Energy Woes." The Christian
Science Monitor, 17 Oct. 2012, https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2012/1017/Why-natural-gas-isn-t-likely-to-solve-our-energy-woes.
We keep hearing about the many benefits of natural gas–how burning it
releases less CO2 than oil or coal, and how it burns with few impurities, so
does not have the pollution problems of coal. We also hear about the
possibilities of releasing huge amounts of new natural gas supplies, through
the fracking of shale gas. Reported reserves for natural gas also seem to be
quite high, especially in the Middle East and the Former Soviet Union.
But I think that people who are counting on natural gas to solve the world’s
energy problems are “counting their chickens before they are hatched”.
Natural gas is a fuel that requires a lot of infrastructure in order for
anything to “happen”. As a result, it needs a lot of up-front investment,
and several years time delay. It also needs changes on the consumption side
(requiring further investment) that will allow this natural gas to be used.
If the cost is higher than competing fuels, this becomes a problem as well.
In many ways, natural gas consumption is captive to other things that are
happening in the economy: an economy that is industrializing rapidly will
easily be able to consume more natural gas, but an economy in decline will
find it hard to scrape together funds for new ways of doing what was done
previously, now with natural gas. Increased use of renewables seems to call
for additional use of natural gas for balancing, but even this is not
certain, because in many parts of the world, natural gas is a high-priced
imported fuel. Political instability, often linked to high oil and
food prices, creates a poor atmosphere for new Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)
facilities, no matter how attractive the pricing may seem to be.
In the US, we have already “hit the wall” on how much natural gas can be
absorbed into the system or used to offset imports. US natural gas
production has been flat since November 2011, based on EIA data (Figure 1).
World Natural Gas Production
The past isn’t the future, but it does give a little bit of understanding
regarding what the underlying trends are.
World natural gas production/consumption (Figure 3) has been increasing,
recently averaging about 2.7% a year. If we compare natural gas to other
energy sources, it has been second to coal in terms of the amount by which
it has contributed to the total increase in world energy supplies in the
last five years (Figure 4). This comparison is made by converting all
amounts to “barrels of oil equivalent”, and computing the increase between
2006 and 2011.
In order for natural gas to be an energy savior for the world, natural gas
consumption would need to increase far more than 2.7% per year, and
outdistance the increase in coal consumption each year. While a modest
increase from past patterns is quite possible, I don’t expect a miracle from
natural gas.
Natural Gas: What Has Changed?
The basic thing that has changed is that fracking now permits extraction of
shale gas (in addition to other types of gas), if other conditions are met
as well:
- Selling price is high enough (probably higher than for other types of
natural gas produced)
- Water is available for fracking
- Governments permit fracking
- Infrastructure is available to handle the fracked gas
Even before the discovery of shale gas, reported world natural gas reserves
were quite high relative to natural gas production (63.6 times 2011
production, according to BP). Reserves might theoretically be even higher,
with additional shale gas discoveries.
In addition, the use of Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) for export is also
increasing, making it possible to ship previously “stranded” natural gas,
such as that in Alaska. This further increases the amount of natural gas
available to world markets.
What Stands in the Way of Greater Natural Gas Usage?
1. Price competition from coal. One major use for natural gas is making
electricity. If locally produced coal is available, it likely will produce
electricity more cheaply than natural gas. The reason shale gas recently
could be sold for electricity production in the United States is because the
selling price for natural gas dropped below the equivalent price for coal.
The “catch” was that shale gas producers were losing money at this price
(and have since dropped back their production). If the natural gas price
increases enough for shale gas to be profitable, electricity production will
again move back toward coal.
Many other parts of the world also have coal available, acting as a cap on
the amount of fracked natural gas likely to be produced. A carbon tax might
change this within an individual country, but those without such a tax will
continue to prefer the lower-price product.
2. Growing internal natural gas use cuts into exports. This is basically the
Exportland model issue, raised by Jeffrey Brown with respect to oil, but for
natural gas. If we look at Africa’s natural gas production, consumption, and
exports, this is what we see:
In Africa, (mostly northern Africa, which exports to Europe and Israel),
consumption has been rising fast enough that exports have leveled off and
show signs of declining.
3. Political instability. Often, countries with large natural gas resources
are ones with large oil resources as well. If oil production starts to drop
off, and as a result oil export revenue drops off, a country is likely to
experience political instability. A good example of this is Egypt.
No matter how much natural gas Egypt may have, it would not make sense for a
company to put in an LNG train or more pipeline export capability, because
the political situation is not stable enough. Egypt needs oil exports to
fund its social programs. The smaller funding amount available from natural
gas exports is not enough to make up that gap, so it is hard to see natural
gas making up the gap, even if it were available in significant quantity.
Iran is a country with large natural gas reserves. It is reportedly looking
into extracting natural gas for export. Again, we have a political stability
issue. Here we have an international sanctions issue as well.
4. “Need the natural gas for myself later” view. A country (such as Egypt or
the United States or Britain) that has been “burned” by declining oil
production may think twice about exporting natural gas. Even if the country
doesn’t need it now, there is a possibility that vehicles using natural gas
could be implemented later, in their own country, thus helping to alleviate
the oil shortage. Also, there are risks and costs involved with fracking,
that they may not choose to incur, if the benefit is to go to exporters.
5. Cost of investment for additional natural gas consumption. In order to
use more natural gas, considerable investment is needed. New pipelines
likely need to be added. Homeowners and businesses may need to purchase
gas-fired furnaces to raise demand. If it is decided to use natural gas
vehicles, there is a need for the new vehicles themselves, plus service
stations and people trained to fix the new vehicles. Additional natural gas
storage may be needed as well. Additional industrial production is difficult
to add, unless wages are low enough that the product being sold will be
competitive on the world market.
Existing “pushes” toward better insulation have the effect of reducing the
amount of natural gas used for heating homes and businesses, so work in the
opposite direction. So do new techniques for making nitrogen-based
fertilizer using coal, rather than using natural gas.
6. Touchy balance between supply and consumption. If additional production
is added, but additional uses are not, we have already seen what happens in
the United States. Storage facilities get overly full, the price of natural
gas drops to unacceptably low levels, and operators scramble to cut back
production.
The required balance between production and consumption is very “touchy”. It
can be thrown off by only a few percent change in production or consumption.
Thus an unusually warm winter, as the United States experienced last year,
played a role in the overly full storage problem. A ramp up of production of
only a few percent can also cause an out of balance situation. Unless a
developer has multiple buyers for its gas, or a “take or pay” long-term
contract, it risks the possibility that the gas that is has developed will
not be wanted at an adequate price.
7. Huge upfront investment requirements. There are multiple requirements for
investing in new shale gas developments. Each individual well costs
literally millions of dollars to drill and frack. The cost will not be paid
back for several years (or perhaps ever, if the selling price is not high
enough), so debt financing is generally needed. If fracking is done, a good
supply of water is needed. This is likely to be a problem in dry countries
such as China. There is a need for trained personnel, drilling rigs of the
right type, and adequate pipelines to put the new gas into. While these
things are available in the United States, it likely will take years to
develop adequate supplies of them elsewhere. All of the legislation that
regulates drilling and enables pipeline building, needs to be in place as
well. Laws need to be friendly to fracking, as well.
Growth in Exports to Date
Exports grew as a percentage of natural gas use through about 2007 or 2008.
In recent years, natural gas exports have fallen slightly as a percentage of
total gas extracted. Thus, if world natural gas supplies have risen by an
average of 2.7% per year for the past five years, exports available for
import have risen a little less rapidly than the 2.7% per year increase. A
major ramp-up in export capability would be needed to change this trend.
While we hear a lot about the rise in exports using LNG, its use does not
seem to be adding to the overall percentage of natural gas exported.
Instead, there has been a shift in the type of export capacity being added.
There are still a few pipelines being added (such as the Nord Stream
pipline, from Russia to Germany), but these are increasingly the exception.
The Shale Gas Pricing Debate
Exactly what price is needed for shale gas to be profitable is subject to
debate. Shale gas requires the payment of huge up-front costs. Once they are
drilled and “fracked,” they will produce for a long period. Company models
assume that they will last as long as 40 years, but geologist Arthur Berman
of The Oil Drum claims substantial numbers are closed down in as few as six
years, because they are not producing enough natural gas to justify their
ongoing costs. There is also a question as to whether the best locations are
drilled first.
Logically a person would expect shale-gas to be quite a bit more expensive
to produce than other natural gas because it is trapped in much smaller
pores, and much more force is required to extracted it. In terms of the
resource triangle that I sometimes show (Figure 8, below), it epitomizes the
low quality, hard to extract resource near the bottom of the triangle that
is available in abundance. We usually start at the top of the resource
triangle, and extract the easiest and cheapest to extract first.
Berman claims that prices $8.68 or higher per million Btu are needed for
profitability of Haynesville Shale, and nearly as high prices are needed to
justify drilling other US shale plays. The current US price is about $3.50
per million Btu, so to be profitable, the price would need to be more than
double the current US price. Prices for natural gas in Europe are much
higher, averaging $11.08 per million Btu in September 2012, but shale gas
extraction costs may be higher there as well.
The US Energy Information Administration admits it doesn’t know how the
economics will work out, and gives a range of projected prices. It is clear
from the actions of the natural gas industry that current prices are a
problem. According to Baker Hughes, the number of drilling rigs engaged in
natural gas drilling has dropped from 936 one year ago to 422, for the week
ended October 12, 2012.
Backup for Renewables
One area where natural gas excels is as a back up for intermittent renewable
energy, since it can ramp up and down quickly. So this is one area where a
person might expect growth. Such a possibility is not certain, though:
1. How much will intermittent renewables continue to ramp up? Governments
are getting poorer, and have less funds available to subsidize them. They do
not compete well on when they go head to head with fossil fuels, nuclear,
and hydroelectric.
2. When intermittent renewables are subsidized with feed in tariffs, and
requirements that wind power be given priority over fossil fuels, it can
provide such an unlevel playing field that it is difficult for natural gas
to be profitable. This is especially the case in locations where natural gas
is already higher-priced than coal.
The Societal “Recipe” Problem
Our economy is built of many interdependent parts. Each business is added,
taking into account what businesses already are in place, and what laws are
in effect. Because of the way the economy currently operates, it uses a
certain proportion of oil, a certain proportion of natural gas, and more or
less fixed proportions of other types of energy. The number of people
employed tends to vary, too, with the size of the economy, with a larger
economy demanding more employees.
Proportions of businesses and energy use can of course change over time. In
fact, there is some flexibility built in. In particular, in the US, we have
a surplus of natural gas electricity generating units, installed in the hope
that they would be used more than they really are, and the energy traded
long distance. But there is less flexibility elsewhere. The cars most people
drive use gasoline, and the only way to cut back is to drive less. Our
furnaces use a particular fuel, and apart from adjusting the temperature
setting, or adding insulation, it is hard to make a change in this. We only
make major changes when it comes time to sell a car, replace a furnace, or
add a new factory.
In my view, the major issue the world has been dealing with in recent years
is an inadequate supply of cheap oil. High priced oil tends to constrict the
economy, because it causes consumers to cut back on discretionary spending.
People in discretionary industries are laid off, and they tend to also spend
less, and sometimes default on their loans. Governments find themselves in
financial difficulty when they collect fewer taxes and need to pay out more
in benefits. While this issue is still a problem in the US, the government
has been able to cover up this effect up in several ways (ultra low interest
rates, a huge amount of deficit spending, and “quantitive easing”). The
effect is still there, and pushing us toward the “fiscal cliff.”
The one sure way to ramp up natural gas usage is for the economy as a whole
to grow. If this happens, natural gas usage will grow for two reasons: (1)
The larger economy will use more gas, and (2) the growth in the economy will
add more opportunities for new businesses, and these new businesses will
have the opportunity to utilize more natural gas, if the price is
competitive.
I have compared the situation with respect to limited oil supply as being
similar to that of a baker, who is trying to bake a batch of cookies that
calls for two cups of flour, but who has only one cup of flour. The baker is
able to make only half a batch. Half of the other ingredients will go unused
as well, because the batch is small.
To me, discovering that we have more natural gas than we had before, is
analogous to the baker discovering that instead of having a dozen eggs in
his refrigerator, there are actually two dozen in his refrigerator. In fact,
he finds he can even go and buy more eggs, if he is willing to pay double
the price he is accustomed to paying. But the eggs really do not fix the
missing cup of flour problem, unless someone can find a way to change eggs
into flour very cheaply.
Basic Energy Types
To me, the most basic forms of energy resources are (1) coal and (2) oil.
Both can be transported easily, if it is possible to extract them. Natural
gas is very much harder to transport and store, so it is in many ways less
useful. It can be made work in combination with oil and coal, because the
use of coal and oil make it possible to build pipelines and make devices to
provide compression to the gas. With coal and oil, it is also possible to
make and maintain electric transmission lines to transport electricity made
with natural gas.
I sometimes talk about renewable energy being a “fossil fuel extender,”
because they hopefully make fossil fuels “go farther”. In some ways, I think
natural gas is an extender for oil and coal. It is hard to imagine a society
powered only by natural gas, because of the difficulties in using it, and
the major changes required to use it exclusively.
In the earliest days, natural gas was simply a “waste product” of oil
extraction. It was “flared” to get rid of it. In many parts of the world,
natural gas is still flared, because the effort it takes to collect it,
transport it, and make it into a useful product is still too high.
The hope that natural gas will be the world’s energy savior depends on our
ability to make this former waste product into a product that will replace
oil and coal. But unless we can put together an economy that needs and uses
it, most of it probably will be left in the ground. The supposedly very high
reserves will do us no good.
Home | Translation: English-Thai
| Translation
Resources | English
Help
Last updated October 11, 2017