Posts tagged natural gas
Ohio’s Untapped Treasure, Environmentalists Scold Ohio Oil and Gas Companies
Feb 2nd
In Carrollton, Ohio natural-gas drilling and coal mining are nothing new. Geologists have known for decades that the Utica and Mercellus shales make up a vast and relatively untapped natural gas and oil reservoir in eastern Ohio. State officials, according to the Akron Beacon Journal Online, estimate the reservoir contains roughly 5.5 billion barrels of propane, butane and oil, enough natural gas to fuel Ohio for 21 years.
In late May this past summer, Chesapeake Energy drilled down more than a mile and engraved a long horizontal shaft through Utica shale − a flaky black rock. If given permission by the state, high-pressure pumps will replace the drilling rig. Gallons of water, chemicals and sand will erode the shale, allowing precious natural gas, oil, butane and propane to escape to the surface.
Such a technique is referred to as “fracking.” Although on one hand, “fracking” allows Ohio energy companies to finally utilize Ohio’s untapped oil and gas reservoirs on the other it is causing massive debate among Ohio environmentalists and Ohio gas industry.
Supporters of shale drilling say such methods will expand oil-and-gas industry and provide thousands of Ohio jobs. Respectable and well-paid jobs that focus on producing a cheap and “clean” energy supply that could last for generations to come.
Environmentalists, on the other hand, say “fracking” is an environmental nightmare. A nightmare in essence that will poison Ohio soils, water and air. Scientist say there is no doubt that such chemicals used during fracturing, in addition to the heavy metals disposed of in the wastewater, pose a enormous threat to groundwater and streams and therefore, to Ohio’s citizens and surrounding neighbors.
Currently, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources’ Division of Oil and Gas Resources Management have issued permits for 23 wells. On March 31 of this year, oil and gas companies must file reports with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, in order to get permits and gain access to the untapped oil.
There is no telling what the state will decide, but sooner rather than later, Carrollton, Ohio will be target to zealous environmentalists and conservationists everywhere.
Written by Tasha Webber
What is Clean, Abundant, Affordable and the Best Alternative Energy Source We Have?
Jan 25th
If you answered cold fusion, eeehhhhh! Your time’s run out! If you answered natural gas, have a 
cigar. Natural gas for the simple reason that it is one of the quickest ways to achieve a future in which an oil importing nation is no longer held hostage by foreign oil and carbon and other harmful emissions are sharply curtailed.
Seems like a heretical statement coming from someone who spent the last 15 years helping to develop an installed base of renewable energy projects. With 2010 Total Energy Production of 1.2% and 0.1% of wind and solar, respectively, the impact of renewable energy is a long way off. In fact, there are signs that the industry maybe softening in the U.S.
Natural gas is the cleanest burning fossil fuel. The combustion of natural gas emits significantly lower levels of carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide than does the combustion of coal or oil. When used in efficient combined-cycle power plants, natural gas combustion can emit less than half as much CO2 as coal combustion, per unit of electricity output.
Are there “issues” with the extraction of natural gas from shale plays? Most certainly. Can the issues be managed? Again the answer is “Yes.”
Problems, and there were fewer than one would think, were as much a “Drill First – Figure Out Regulations Later” attitude than and real technical issues with horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing “Fracking.” The issues were traced to use of unproven methods buy unqualified drillers and frackers as well as misconception and perception.The fact of the matter is there were only 42 (<0.3%) documented incidents of casing failures from improper cementing out of over 15,000 shall gas wells drilled in U.S.
Another misconception is the public outrage over benzene emissions for wells. Again the facts show that there were little of no benzene emissions in the Barnett shale. Measurements ran about 0.001% or 1/1,000 of 1% benzene, compared to 0.5% to 1% in gasoline.
Environmental concerns with shale gas production are being raised throughout the global landscape where it is technically feasible to extract the natural gas. The primary driver is hydraulic fracturing’s impact on drinking water. The fracturing slurry is a mixture of 99% water and sand in combination with a proprietary mix of 1% chemical additives. The fluid is injected underground to fracture rock containing natural gas. This can impact drinking water from contaminated aquifers and wells. The other concern is the potential for water and air contamination by fugitive leakage of natural gas during extraction and delivery. Natural gas is a potent greenhouse gas with the ability to trap heat almost 21 times more effectively than carbon dioxide.
The brouhaha over water contamination arose from an unfortunate situation in Wyoming. Many news articles about the situation failed to highlight some key clauses in the EPA’s decision. First, the Agency was not definitive in blaming fracking for the water problems. Second, the EPA released the study before it had gone through the peer review process. Third, and most importantly, the Wyoming field is very different from most fracking areas. The gas-bearing rock being fractured in Wyoming was only about 1,220 feet deep and some water wells reached as far as 800 feet. By comparison, the gas-bearing rocks targeted by fracking operators in Texas and Pennsylvania are several thousand feet below any water supplies. Unlike shale formations like the Marcellus in Pennsylvania and the Barnett in Texas, the Wyoming gas was in a sandstone reservoir and did not have a geologic barrier or “cap” atop the gas-bearing layer. With so many major geologic differences between the fracked wells near Pavillion and those in shale basins, industry experts caution against extrapolating any conclusions from the Wyoming study.
Worldwide technical recoverable shale gas reserves is estimated to be about 32,500 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) U.S.’s reserves have the potential to produce 845 Tcf including “wet gas” wells that produce liquid petroleum condensate along with natural gas. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that there are 1,279.5 Trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of technically recoverable natural gas resources in the United States.
Natural gas can change the region’s economic landscape. Recently the IHS Global Insight reported:
“….. natural gas “shale gale” that began in the Barnett Shale is having “profound economic impacts” on the U.S. economy — creating jobs, reducing consumer costs for natural gas and electricity and escalating federal, state and local tax revenues,”
“….. shale gas development, after contributing $76.9 billion to the nation’s economic output in 2010, will add $118.2 billion in 2015 and $231.1 billion in 2035.”
“….. in 2010, the shale gas industry supported more than 600,000 jobs; that number will likely grow to nearly 870,000 by 2015 and 1.6 million-plus by 2035.”
“….. savings from lower natural gas prices, as well as associated lower prices for other consumer purchases, will add an average $926 in disposable income per household annually from 2012 to 2015 and more than $2,000 annually by 2035.”
“….. the shale gas industry and related jobs pay higher wages — an average $23.16 per hour — than those in manufacturing, transportation and education.”
“….. the boom in domestic gas production has held down natural gas prices and thus electric rates in Texas because gas is burned to generate much of the power.”
“….. as a transportation fuel, compressed natural gas is cleaner-burning and much cheaper than gasoline,”
The primary economic consideration is the need to boost demand of natural gas. As supplies increase, unless there is a corresponding increase in demand, the price will plummet until it becomes financially sound to stop productions.
The two primary sectors that use fossil fuels are electricity generation through coal-fired power generation stations and the transportation industry through petroleum. T Converting coal-fired to natural gas-fired electricity generation plant is on a relative basis a no brainer. However, the transportation sector is somewhat more problematic in terms of converting vehicles internal combustion energy from gasoline to natural gas. The cost of conversion can range from $12,000 for light-duty to over $35,000 for heavy-duty vehicles. When gasoline retail prices fall below $3.00 a gallon, it’s a difficult proposition to justify the cost to convert vehicles to run on CNG. However, over $3.25 a gallon, conversion is a sound investment.
Natural gas can also play an essential role in the export market. An article that ran early last year in the Huffington Post points in this direction.”U.S. Becomes Net Exporter Of Fuel For First Time In Nearly 20 Years”. Diesel and other oil-based fuels led the increase.
So what can be said about natural gas can be summed up in one phrase: “A thousand workers can provide it, hundreds of countries can benefit from it, billions can use it, and one earth can be protected by it.
In closing, more than any other fuel source today and for the near future, natural gas is the only fuel that can be utilized across major fossil fuel hungry sectors. As a sustainabilist would say, it supports the triple bottom line of people, planet and profit. Renewable fuels fail to satisfy these criteria.
References:
- EIA: http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/showtext.cfm?t=ptb0103
- The Future of Natural Gas: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study:http://web.mit.edu/mitei/research/studies/naturalgas.html
- NaturalGas.org http://www.naturalgas.org/business/analysis.asp
- IHS Global Insight: http://www.ihs.com/info/ecc/a/shale-gas-jobs-report.aspx
- Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/03/us-becomes-net-exporter-o_n_857085.html
The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author Dr. Barry Stevens, an accomplished business developer and entrepreneur in technology-driven enterprises. He is the founder of TBD America Inc., a global technology business development group. In this role, he is responsible for leading the development of emerging and mature technology driven enterprises in the shale gas, natural gas, renewable energy and sustainability industries. To learn more about TBD America, please visit: http://tbdamericainc.com/
Shale Gas is Not a Fracking Mess
Jan 18th
Natural gas is a critical feedstock to many chemical production processes, and has many environmental benefits over coal as a fuel for electricity generation; over electricity and traditional heating fuels in the industrial, commercial and residential sectors; and over gasoline as a fuel for the transportation industry. Because natural gas has the lowest carbon content of all fossil fuels and not a mixture of other carbon containing compounds with other inorganic impurities, it is the cleanest “burning” fossil fuel, including lower emissions of sulfur, metal compounds, and carbon dioxide. But to produce natural gas from shale has some questionable environmental, safety and health risks. These environmental issues are the result of modern methods of subsurface extraction. Specifically, the unconventional methods involve horizontal drilling and “fracking” or more formally “hydraulic fracturing.”
Fracking is a current societal hot a button. Almost as pervasive as the subject of Climate Change! Both topics give rise to highly polarized groups with strong unwavering sentiments. These groups are mirrored by disbelievers basing opinions on perception and anecdotal information rather than facts.
Some may say the facts are generated by insidious conspirators, be it Big Oil, government officials, the commercial sector and the scientific community, who have a vested interest in hiding the truth. To some degree this may be a valid statement. But, as will be seen later in this discussion, there are some reputable, independent and impartial studies that can be used to understand the truth.
This discussion hopes to present an honest and unbiased viewpoint of fracking and horizontal drilling. If there is any bias, it’s towards a more realistic perspective of doing the right thing to achieve a cleaner and more prosperous world. This discussion is a continuation in part of “Natural Gas: The Cleaner Environment.”
Fracking is a process to unlock vast reserves of shale gas. In fracking, large volumes of water and sand, along with chemical additives, are injected under high pressure into a well bore to create small cracks (fissures) in hard shale formations that allow the gas to flow to the surface. Fracking goes back about 60 years.
According to Hydraulic Fracturing: History of an Enduring Technology, fracking is not a new technology. “It can be traced to the 1860s, when liquid (and later, solidified) nitroglycerin (NG) was used to stimulate shallow, hard rock wells in Pennsylvania, New York, Kentucky, and West Virginia. Although extremely hazardous, and often used illegally, NG was spectacularly successful for oil well “shooting.” The object of shooting a well was to break up, or rubblize, the oil-bearing formation to increase both initial flow and ultimate recovery of oil. This same fracturing principle was soon applied with equal effectiveness to water and gas wells.
“Then in 1947 Stanolind Oil conducted the first experimental fracturing in the Hugoton field located in southwestern Kansas. The treatment utilized napalm (gelled gasoline) and sand from the Arkansas River. Since 1949, when fracturing was formally introduced, close to 2.5 million fracture treatments have been performed worldwide.”
Fracking made extraction of natural gas from shale layers commercial viable. Natural gas is tightly bound in the dense shale layers, and therefore, hard to release. Fracking both creates fissures in the rock and keeps them open for a sustained outflow of the gas. When used in conjunction with horizontal drilling, more surface area of the gas containing shale layer is exposed to the fracking fluid. This dramatically increases the yield of natural gas and shifts the economics to a much more favorable position.
The controversy over fracking has to do with health and safety concerns and the impact on the environment. These are by far not trivial issues. So what’s about fracking that raises these concerns? Fracking is subsurface, high pressure, water intensive and contains chemical additives. All of this sets the stage for groundwater contamination.
What can be reliably said of fracking comes from MIT’s Energy Initiative study. The study was a multidisciplinary effort carried out by a team of Institute faculty, staff and graduate students with advice from a board of 18 leaders from industry, government and environmental groups.
The study found:
- “….. only 42 documented incidents of such problems (water contamination), out of tens of thousands of wells drilled.”
- “….. the environmental impacts of shale development are challenging but manageable,”
- “….. the small number of cases where there has been contamination, the problem has stemmed from improper cementing of the well casings.”
- “….. “The quality of that cementing is the area where the industry has to do a better job,”
Fracking wells are between 5,000-10,000 feet deep and uses between 3-5 million gallons of water per well. The fracking fluid is a proprietary slurry mixture consisting of no less than 98% water and sand. The remaining 2% or less includes 3-12 chemical additives most of which are commonly used with little or no health risks. Though several are classified as toxic or hazardous, only one – ethylene glycol (automotive antifreeze) can be harmful or fatal if swallowed.
Specifically, fracking fluid contains:
The toxic or hazardous substances including their health from U.S. Material Safety Data Sheets are:
- Glutaraldehyde – Hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant), of eye contact (irritant), of ingestion, of inhalation (lung irritant, lung sensitizer).
- Ammonium persulfate - Harmful if swallowed
- N,n-dimethyl formamide – Hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant, permeator), of eye contact (irritant), of ingestion, of inhalation.
- Guar gum or hydroxyethyl cellulose – Severe eye irritant. Harmful if swallowed or inhaled, and in contact with the skin. Laboratory experiments have shown mutagenic effects.
- Ethylene glycol – Harmful or fatal if swallowed, harmful if inhaled or absorbed through skin, may cause allergic skin reaction, may cause irritation to skin, eyes, and respiratory tract, affects central nervous system.
Another concern with shale gas is the impact of local air quality and release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Natural gas is a potent greenhouse gas with the ability to trap heat almost 21 times more effectively than carbon dioxide.
Potential emission sources include compressor engine exhausts and oil/condensate tanks, production equipment, well drilling and fracking engines, well completions, gas processing, transmission and the large number of supporting components such as pumps, flanges, valves, gauges, pipe connectors, compressors, and other pieces.
According to NatrualGas.org:
- “….. although methane emissions account for only 1.1 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, they account for 8.5 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions based on global warming potential.”
- “….. Sources of methane emissions in the U.S. include the waste management and operations industry, the agricultural industry, as well as leaks and emissions from the oil and gas industry itself.”
- “….. in 2011, researchers at the Carnegie Mellon University released “Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of Marcellus shale gas”, a report comparing greenhouse gas emissions from the Marcellus Shale region with emissions from coal used for electricity generation. The authors found that wells in the Marcellus region emit 20 percent to 50 percent less greenhouse gases than coal used to produce electricity”.
- “….. In 1993, the natural gas industry joined with EPA in launching the Natural Gas STAR Program to reduce methane emissions. The STAR program has chronicled dramatic reductions to methane emissions, since that time”
- “…. the increased use of natural gas in the place of other, dirtier fossil fuels can serve to lessen the emission of greenhouse gases in the United States.”
This does not suggest society should turn a blind eye. Far from it! According to a report issued bySouthern Methodist University, cost effective control strategies are readily available that can substantially reduce emissions, and in some cases, reduce costs for oil and gas operators. These options include:
- use of “green completions” to capture methane and VOC compounds during well completions,
- phasing in electric motors as an alternative to internal-combustion engines to drive compressors,
- the control of VOC emissions from condensate tanks with vapor recovery units, and
- replacement of high-bleed pneumatic valves and fittings on the pipeline networks with no-bleed alternatives.
The knowhow exists to minimize the environmental, safety and health risks of shale gas extraction. Some remedies include:
- intensifying on-site oversight,
- closing loopholes that exempt fracking from key federal air and water environmental regulations,
- toughening up the permitting process and ordnances,
- ensuring production companies follow industry best practices,
- implementing more air and water testing, requiring drillers to publically disclose the chemical additives used in the fracking fluid, which up to now was consider a trade secret,
- developing new rules over the disposal of the fracking waste water, and
- identifying cost-effective emissions control procedures.
In addition to the environmental and health benefits of natural gas over other fossil fuels, the final caveat to this discussion is the economic benefits from shale gas production.
Recently the IHS Global Insight reported:
“….. natural gas “shale gale” that began in the Barnett Shale is having “profound economic impacts” on the U.S. economy — creating jobs, reducing consumer costs for natural gas and electricity and escalating federal, state and local tax revenues,”
“….. shale gas development, after contributing $76.9 billion to the nation’s economic output in 2010, will add $118.2 billion in 2015 and $231.1 billion in 2035.”
“….. in 2010, the shale gas industry supported more than 600,000 jobs; that number will likely grow to nearly 870,000 by 2015 and 1.6 million-plus by 2035.”
“….. savings from lower natural gas prices, as well as associated lower prices for other consumer purchases, will add an average $926 in disposable income per household annually from 2012 to 2015 and more than $2,000 annually by 2035.”
“….. the shale gas industry and related jobs pay higher wages — an average $23.16 per hour — than those in manufacturing, transportation and education.”
“….. the boom in domestic gas production has held down natural gas prices and thus electric rates in Texas because gas is burned to generate much of the power.”
“….. as a transportation fuel, compressed natural gas is cleaner-burning and much cheaper than gasoline,”
As shown, condemnation of fracking makes little sense; control of fracking makes much sense. Societal issues are not black and white. Everything has risks. Our job is to manage these risks while exploiting the benefits of shale gas. Today, the U.S. and other countries of the world find itself in a precarious “energy” position. Renewable energy has yet to make a significant impact on our energy mix. Nuclear energy is more highly charged issue. Conventional hydroelectric is locked up in its own environmental constraints. Traditional fuels are continuing to increase in cost and adversely affect the environment and the health of the public. Other than natural gas, there are few viable choices for the near future.
Possibly not a fair comparison, but from 1899-2010 there were 3,513,897 motor vehicle fatalities in the U.S. In 2010 alone, there were 32,708 motor vehicle deaths. Based on these shocking statistics, it’s curious why the same people wanting to ban fracking are not calling for a total ban on driving?
Few are elated when they receive higher utility bills and pay more for gasoline at-the-pump. All want the most bang for their buck. All want assurance that electricity and heat is available upon the flick of the switch. If society was willing to pay any price for what they get while making significant sacrifices to their lifestyle and comfort, the equation might be in favor of clean and renewable fuels. But people for the most part are not willing to pay more for commodities like electricity and gasoline and change the way they live. That is a plain and simple fact.
In closing, it’s a desirable goal to rebalance our economy’s energy production and consumption from fossil fuels to cheap clean fuels. For this to happen, our government must enact a true clean energy policy and aggressively fund related programs. It’s clear that this is not in the cards. In the meantime, the U.S. has little choice but to leverage its abundant natural gas reserves as a transitional bridge until such time that our government “walks the talk.”
Shale gas is transformative and can play a major role towards achieving energy security, economic prosperity and a cleaner environment. This will buy time while renewable energy develops into an economically reliable source of energy. Until our law makers wake up to the realities of their fiddling while we continue to burn dirty fossil fuels, these environmental and health issues will continue to plague our society.
If there is a more realistic solution adoptable today without pain in the pocket book and lifestyle than pushing natural gas forward with adequate controls, please speak up.
References:
- “Natural Gas: The Clean Alternative“
- http://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/Natural-Gas-The-Clean-Alternative.html
- “Hydraulic Fracturing: History of an Enduring Technology“:http://frack.mixplex.com/content/hydraulic-fracturing-history-enduring-technology
- MIT Energy Initiative: http://web.mit.edu/mitei/research/studies/natural-gas-2011.shtml and http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/natural-gas-full-report-0609.html
- NaturalGas.org: http://www.naturalgas.org/environment/naturalgas.asp#greenhouse
- Southern Methodist University, Emissions from Natural Gas Production in the Barnett Shale Area and Opportunities for Cost-Effective Improvements:http://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/9235_Barnett_Shale_Report.pdf
- HIS Global Insight, The Economic and Employment Contribution of Shale Gas in the U.S. http://www.anga.us/media/235626/shale-gas-economic-impact-dec-2011.pdf andhttp://www.star-telegram.com/2011/12/06/v-print/3576017/report-shale-gas-industry-has.html
- List of Motor Vehicle Deaths by Year in the U.S.http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year
The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author Dr. Barry Stevens, an accomplished business developer and entrepreneur in technology-driven enterprises. He is the founder of TBD America Inc., a global technology business development group. In this role, he is responsible for leading the development of emerging and mature technology driven enterprises in the shale gas, natural gas, renewable energy and sustainability industries. To learn more about TBD America, please visit: http://tbdamericainc.com/
Earthquakes, Water Pollution and Increased Greenhouse Gas Emissions? Fracking – Strike Number Three?
Dec 26th
The last decade has seen a sustained campaign by the hydraulic fracturing (‘fracking”) industry against its critics, as the fracking industry in the U.S. alone was worth an estimated $76 billion in 2010 and is projected to grow to $231 billion in 2036, if only those pesky environmentalists can be sidelined. According to Washington’s Energy Information Administration, production of shale gas in the United States in 2010 totalled 4.87 trillion cubic feet (tcf) compared with 0.39 tcf only a decade earlier.
The combination of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing has already transformed North America’s natural gas market in less than half a decade. In 2000 shale gas was 1 percent of America’s gas supplies; today it is 25 percent. While U.S. energy companies began fracking for gas in the late 1990s, there was a dramatic increase in 2005 after the administration of President George W. Bush exempted fracking from regulations under the U.S. Clean Water Act. According to Washington’s Energy Information Agency, shale gas production has grown 48 percent annually.
But there are still some snakes to be chased from the industry’s campaign to convince the electorate that natgas produced by fracking is safe. As on 8 December, 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency for the first time said it found chemicals used in fracking in a drinking-water aquifer in west-central Wyoming.
Soothing the electorate, the industry group Energy in Depth reported, “The history of fracturing technology’s safe use in America extends all the way back to the Truman administration, with more than 1.2 million wells completed via the process since 1947.”
And the feds are backing fracking as well, as a new estimate from the U.S. Department of Energy, estimates that the national gas resource can be sustained for another 110 years at current consumption rates.
Numbers?
In 2009 an industry-financed study reported that 622,000 people are directly involved in the discovery, extraction and distribution of U.S. natural gas.
As for “insider” influence, in 2005 former Vice President Dick Cheney, in partnership with the energy industry and drilling companies such as his former employer, Halliburton Corp., successfully pressured Congress to exempt fracking from the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Air Act and other environmental laws.
Even worse, a report released the following month by the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research noted that switching from coal to natural gas as an energy source could result in increased global warming, mainly due to the methane leakage problem, which is common but unregulated.
In a further potential federal sandbagging of the natgas industry, the federal Environmental Protection Agency, which studied fracking and deemed it safe in 2004, is taking another, broader look at the practice and may end up taking a more active role, with a broader study expected to be finished next year.
Maalox moments all – but now fracking is being charged with contributing to global warming by releasing substantial amounts of methane, a greenhouse gas 20-100 times more potent than carbon dioxide. According to Igor Semiletov of the International Arctic Research Centre at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, “Each methane molecule is about 70 times more potent in terms of trapping heat than a molecule of carbon dioxide.”
Professor Robert Howarth, Professor of Ecology and Environmental Biology and director of Cornell’s agriculture, energy and environment program has noted that his research shows that one well-pad fracking shale gas would emit more greenhouse gases than a community of 100,000 people in a year. Methane already accounts for a sixth of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions (GGEs). In addressing earlier concerns about the pollution impact of fracking Dr. Howarth wrote in Boston University’s Comment 14 September article, “Should Fracking Stop?,” “Many fracking additives are toxic, carcinogenic or mutagenic. Many are kept secret.
In the United States, such secrecy has been abetted by the 2005 ‘Halliburton loophole,’ which exempts fracking from many of the nation’s major federal environmental-protection laws, including the Safe Drinking Water Act… Fracking extracts natural salts, heavy metals, hydrocarbons and radioactive materials from the shale, posing risks to ecosystems and public health when these return to the surface…
Because shale-gas development is so new, scientific information on the environmental costs is scarce. Only this year have studies begun to appear in peer-reviewed journals, and these give reason for pause.”
Even worse, during the UN climate change conference in Durban last week, Dominic Frongillo, a town councillor from Caroline, New York, which is atop the Marcellus Shale seam, estimated to contain 489 trillion cubic feet of extractable natural gas noted that “Before I left for Durban, Professor Howarth told me that “preventing unconventional gas extraction could be the number one thing we could do in the short term to control growth of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.”
According to Professor Howarth, “Methane is an incredibly potent greenhouse gas… Our research indicates that methane makes up more than 40 percent of the entire greenhouse gas inventory for the U.S. … We really need to get this methane leakage under control, if we are to seriously address global warming.” His paper, “Methane and the greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations,” written with Renee Santoro and Anthony Ingraffea of Cornell concluded that shale gas is more polluting than oil and conventional natural gas, noting, “The footprint for shale gas is greater than that for conventional gas or oil when viewed on any time horizon, but particularly so over 20 years. Compared to coal, the footprint of shale gas is at least 20 percent greater and perhaps more than twice as great on the 20-year horizon.”
The pushback has already started, with a number of his Cornell colleagues questioning Dr. Howarth’s research methodology. See Lawrence M Cathles III, Larry Brown, Milton Taam and Andrew Hunter, “A Commentary on “The Greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas in shale formations” by R.W. Howarth, R. Santoro, and Anthony Ingraffea” @http://cce.cornell.edu/.
What is clear is that while Cornell’s faculty is divided over the consequences of fracking, the industry has impacted the university’s Board of Trustees, which among other things oversees the university’s $5.28 billion endowment fund. According to the 16 February 2010 edition of the “Cornell Sun,” “Chairman of the Board of Trustees Peter Meinig ’61 is one of the most powerful decision-makers at Cornell. But as the University begins a long process to consider whether it should lease its land in the Marcellus Shale to gas drilling companies, Meinig’s former ties to the natural gas industry has raised some eyebrows in the Cornell community and beyond. From 1993 to 2001, Meinig served on the board of directors of Williams Companies, Inc, one of the nation’s largest natural gas companies. A Fortune 200 company that generated $1.42 billion in profits in 2009, Williams transports about 12 percent of the natural gas consumed in America everyday and has interests in the Marcellus Shale basin, according to the company’s website.”
What is clear is that the impact of natural gas hydraulic fracturing at Cornell has turned into a mounting academic storm with passionate advocates on both sides of the fence. It is notable that Cathles’, Brown’s, Taam’s and Hunter’s critique features prominently on the website of America’s Natural Gas Alliance,” (ANGA) a pro-industry advocacy group.
Let the games begin!
Written by. Dr. John C.K. Daly for OilPrice.com. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author, Dr. John C.K. Daly. For more information on oil prices and other commodity related topics please visit http://oilprice.com
By. John C.K. Daly of Oilprice.com
Natural Gas: The Clean Alternative
Dec 12th
It has been common knowledge for quite sometime now that natural gas is a suitable clean alternative to all fossil fuels. Natural gas can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and its reserves are abundant. Sure, it’s not on par with renewable sources of energy such as solar and wind. But let’s get real; solar, wind, biomass, geothermal lack the installed base to make a difference.
A quick review of the supply source and demand sector data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) given below shows that:
- Coal is the primary supply source for Electric Power Generation; the largest energy demand sector.
- Petroleum is the primary supply source for the Transportation industry; the second largest demand sector.
- The 8% contribution of renewable energy to U.S. energy pathway is primarily from biomass (50%) and conventional hydroelectric power (35%). Not including these sources, solar and wind makeup only 0.8% of the entire energy supply for the U.S. economy; see EIA Renewable Energy Consumption and Electricity Preliminary Statistics 2009.
OK, the U.S. and for that matter most developed countries of the word are fossil fuel based economies. Will renewables ever make an impact on the economy? As far back as the mid 90’s, some of us thought they would. But due to the high capital cost, poor reliability, site specificity, intensive real estate requirements, and the need for local, state and federal incentives, renewables are creeping forward at such a small pace society needs an interim alternative to alternative energy.
In such a scenario, natural gas comes to the rescue and serves as the clean energy bridge to the future. Shale gas the new source of today’s natural gas, which has contributed to an increase in domestic reserves, has had a deep impact on the U.S. economy. A report from IHS Global Insight points out that shale gas created jobs, reduced consumer costs for natural gas and electricity and increased local, state and federal tax revenues. Furthermore, natural gas requires no innovation to burn in an electric power generation station or combust in any internal combustion energy on the road. And finally, natural gas is cheaper. If this is not what is needed to bolster our economy, then someone better come forth ASAP with a more viable solution.
Although, environmentalists will argue that natural gas is a limited fossil fuel, it seems like the industry is Robbing Peter to Pay Paul! On face value this appears to be true, but as we wait to realize the benefits of clean energy, society is burning lots of coal and petroleum, while exporting dollars to feed our thrust for harmful fossil fuels. For the foreseeable future, burn we must!
The following chart clearly shows that natural gas is a much cleaner source of energy than other more ‘conventional’ fossil fuels.
Fossil Fuel Emission Levels | |||
Pounds per Billion Btu of Energy Input | |||
| Pollutant | Natural Gas | Oil | Coal |
| Carbon Dioxide | 117,000 | 164,000 | 208,000 |
| Carbon Monoxide | 40 | 33 | 208 |
| Nitrogen Oxides | 92 | 448 | 457 |
| Sulfur Dioxide | 1 | 1,122 | 2,591 |
| Particulates | 7 | 84 | 2,744 |
| Mercury | 0.000 | 0.007 | 0.016 |
Source: Natural Gas Issues and Trends 1998 | |||
The only conundrum is the slow rate of adoption of compressed or liquefied natural gas vehicles (CNG and LNG) in the transportation industry. Here too, natural gas is cheaper than fossil fuels, the cost of conversion is significantly less than Electric Vehicles (EV), and does not have the range anxiety of EVs. NGV America reports that there are about 112,000 NGVs on U.S. roads today and more than 13 million worldwide. Considering the fact that there are about 255 million registered vehicles in the U.S. the number of CNG and LNG vehicles are pitiful.
In closing, either go natural gas today or live with an ever-increasing environmental and economic threat from coal and petroleum. As of now, seeing our economy run by a large percent of truly clean and renewable fuels is unfortunately a distant dream.
References:
- EIA: http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pecss_diagram.cfm
- EIA: http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/renew_energy_consump/rea_prereport.html
- IHS Global Insight: http://www.ihs.com/info/ecc/a/shale-gas-jobs-report.aspx
- NGV America: http://www.ngvc.org/about_ngv/
- Bureau of Transportation Statics: http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_11.html
The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author Dr. Barry Stevens, an accomplished business developer and entrepreneur in technology-driven enterprises. He is the founder of TBD America Inc., a global technology business development group. In this role, he is responsible for leading the development of new and emerging technology driven enterprises in the shale gas, natural gas, renewable energy and sustainability industries. To learn more about TBD America, please visit: http://tbdamericainc.com/
Oil Hypocrisy Exposed on Capitol Hill!
Nov 21st
Almost every U.S. politician over the last 40 years pledged unwavering support to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and imported oil for reasons of national security, energy security, economic prosperity and environmental stewardship. With all this flag waving, talk of renewable, clean and sustainable energy, and furor over foreign oil, what has actually been achieved?
The U.S. Energy Information Association (“EIA”) , Short-Term Outlook Report, September 7, 2011 concludes:
U.S. Liquid Fuels Consumption.
Total consumption of liquid fuels in 2010 grew 410 thousand bbl/d, or 2.2 percent, the highest rate of growth since 2004. In contrast, projected total U.S. liquid fuels consumption in 2011 falls by 170 thousand bbl/d (0.9 percent). Motor gasoline consumption accounts for almost all the projected decline for the year.
EIA expects total liquid fuels consumption to increase by 80 thousand bbl/d (0.4 percent) to 19.1 million bbl/d in 2012, down from the 170 thousand bbl/d increase projected in the previous Outlook because of the downward revisions to the U.S. economic growth forecast. Projected motor gasoline consumption rises by 40 thousand bbl/d (0.5 percent) as highway travel increases modestly, and distillate fuel consumption increases by 30 thousand bbl/d (0.9 percent) as growth in industrial activity and non-petroleum imports continues to slow as a result of continuing weak economic growth in 2012.
U.S. Liquid Fuels Supply and Imports.
Domestic crude oil production, which increased by 110 thousand bbl/d in 2010 to 5.5 million bbl/d, increases by a further 140 thousand bbl/d in 2011 and by 60 thousand bbl/d in 2012 (U.S. Crude Oil Production Chart), driven by increased oil-directed drilling activity, particularly in unconventional shale formations.
Liquid fuel net imports (including both crude oil and refined products) fell from 57 percent of total U.S. consumption in 2008 to 49 percent in 2010 because of rising domestic production and the decline in consumption during the economic downturn. EIA forecasts that liquid fuel net imports’ share of total consumption will decline further to 47 percent in both 2011 and 2012.
In simple terms, the report states:
- U.S. consumption of crude oil jumped in 2010, may decline slightly in 2011 and should rise again in 2012 for a total net increase of 1.7% from 2010.
- Domestic production of crude oil is projected to show an increase from 2010 to 2012.
- The percent contribution of imported oil to domestic consumption is projected to continue to decline through 2012.
However, a review of “U.S. Annual Crude Oil Net Imports,” shows a horse of a different color. In fact, the decline in crude oil imports is not really a decline at all. According to EIA data (see following graph):
- Oil imports increased 51% from 1992 to 2012 (projected).
- Oil imports shall remain relatively stable over the next few years.
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration
So if what we hear is not exactly true, then what is at play? The underpinnings of U.S.’s energy policy rests with The Department of Energy (“DoE”), which is mandated to ensure America’s security and prosperity by addressing its energy, environmental and nuclear challenges through transformative science and technology solutions.
In a dramatic demonstration of the difference between actual and perceived, the DoE’s FY2012 Budget stipulated that the request of $29.5 billion “reflects increases for priority areas such as clean energy, nuclear security, and research and development. Savings are achieved through cuts to inefficient fossil energy programs.” True, allocations towards renewable energy projects increased to 3.9% of DoE’s entire budget from 2.2% in their FY2000 budget. But to think a paltry $1.16 billion in renewable energy expenditures in 2012 will have a major impact on achieving energy security and independence is unrealistic and downright nonsense.
If the DoE’ is nothing more than a political subterfuge then what programs and initiatives, if any, are driving changes to free us from oil based economy. The answer is obviously nothing. In reality it’s not a clean energy economy or freedom from foreign oil our lawmakers are actually striving for.
The final test of our government’s interest in these lofty goals will be in what Congress does with the issue of tax subsidies to the oil industry. Reflected in the International Center for Technology Assessment’s (“CTA”) 2003 Progress Report, “What Gasoline Really Costs Us,” and New York Times’ July 2010 article “As Oil Industry Fights a Tax, It Reaps Subsidies,” “oil production is among the most heavily subsidized businesses.”
CTA cites the reason “the federal government provides the oil industry with numerous tax breaks is to ensure that domestic companies can compete with international producers and that gasoline remains cheap for American consumers.” In addition to direct tax subsidies to the oil industry, other federal handouts and hidden costs lie in Government Program Subsidies; Protection Costs Involved in Oil Shipment and Motor Vehicle Services; Environmental, Health, and Social Costs of Gasoline Usage; and Other Important Externalities of Motor Vehicle Use. In total, these programs keep the price of petroleum artificially low, encourage its use and discourage use of other forms of clean energy.
In closing, after knowing the facts, it’s easy to deduce, that our elected officials on Capitol Hill are less than sincere in their efforts to adopt alternate sources of energy and reduce oil imports. If they are, then this is a supreme example of incompetency. If they are not inherently interested in getting us off oil, which seems to be the case, then deceit is the only remaining option. Additionally, with all the economic uncertainties in our economy, it would seem to be a no brainer and a win-win situation, to remove these subsidies.
Seems our trusted lawmakers are playing a most dangerous game.
The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author Dr. Barry Stevens, an accomplished business developer and entrepreneur in technology-driven enterprises. He is the founder of TBD America Inc., a technology business development group. In this role, he is responsible for leading technology driven enterprises through ideation, development and commercialization. To read his other discussions, please visit: http://barryonenergy.wordpress.com
Turkmen Gas Finally Gets Washington’s Attention – A Little too Late
Jul 27th
One of Washington’s key policy tenets since the 1991 collapse of Communism has been to pry out from under Moscow’s control as much of the energy assets of the post-Soviet space as possible.
Nowhere has this policy been more evident than in the Caspian basin and the energy riches of the new post-Soviet states of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. To the north lies Russia, with whom Washington jostles for these assets while Iran rings the Caspian’s southern shore, a rogue “axis of evil” member state that Washington has been punishing with sanctions on its energy sector since well before the Evil Empire collapsed.
Now, in a stunning example of naïve hope over geopolitical and economic reality Washington is wooing Turkmenistan, hoping to get a slice of the pie of the world’s fourth or fifth-largest natural gas deposits.
What caused the drooling in Beltwayistan was the release in May of a report by the respected British audit firm Gaffney, Cline and Associates on Turkmenistan’s gas reserves. The report concluded that the South Yolotan natural gas superfield, discovered in 2006, contains reserves of more than 20 trillion cubic meters of natural gas, enough to satisfy European demand for more than 50 years and making it the second largest gas field ever found. It should be noted here that when in 2006, following the field’s discovery, Turkmenistan’s megalomania cal ruler, Saparmurat “Turkmenbashi” Niyazov claimed that the discovery boosted the country’s reserves up to 24 trillion cubic meters of natural gas, his claims were taken as mere braggadocio, with BP calculating them at slightly more than 1/10th that amount. A similar thing happened two years later, when Gaffney, Cline and Associates first audited South Yolotan, and their findings were initially ridiculed as overstated.
Who’s laughing now?
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s special envoy on Eurasian Energy, Ambassador Richard L. Morningstar was hurriedly dispatched to Ashgabat, where on 14 June he met with Turkmen President Gurbangeldy Berdymukhammedov after which he gurgled, “The U.S. praises the energy policy of Turkmenistan and its positive initiatives relating to global energy security and the development of broad international cooperation.”
Perhaps Morningstar’s staffers forgot to remind him that early last year Turkmenistan inaugurated two new pipelines to China and Iran that have given Turkmenistan additional export routes for its gas. If the special envoy felt that he had maneuvering room with Berdymukhammedov, it was because the Turkmen ruler is reportedly still annoyed with Gazprom, which unilaterally drastically cut its imports of Turkmen gas on 9 April 2009, causing an explosion at the 302nd-mile segment of the Soviet-era Truboprovodnaiia sistema Sredniaia Aziia-Tsentr (the Central Asia-Center, or SATS, pipeline system) SATS-4 Davletbat-Daryalik pipeline between the Ilyaly and Deryalyk compressor stations near the Turkmen-Uzbek border, halting Turkmen natural gas exports to Russia, which had been running at 42-45 billion cubic meters (bcm) per annum. Gazprom only resumed imports in January 2010, but at a much reduced level. While the new Chinese and Iranian lines have picked up some slack, the Turkmen government still remains angry with Gazprom for the reduced revenue stream.
Even assuming that Morningstar’s diplomatic charms are sufficient to woo Berdymukhammedov to consider gas exports westwards, there remains the small issue of dividing the Caspian’s offshore wasters and seabed, a niggling legacy of the collapse of the USSR two decades ago. Briefly put, Russia favors a solution whereby the five Caspian states receive allotments proportional to their coastline, while Iran is holding out for an equitable 20 percent division for all.
Despite their diplomatic distance however, there is little doubt that both Russia and Iran would oppose the construction of any such undersea Caspian pipeline linking Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan, and the military and diplomatic pressure they could bring on their neighbors would and could be formidable.
Oh, and did I mention that on 30 June that China announced its second pipeline with Turkmenistan, a $22 billion, 5,370 mile pipeline with an annual capacity of 30 bcm had begun operations and that Beijing is on target to replace Russia as Turkmenistan’s leading export market within a few years?
It would seem that Morningstar landed in Ashgabat more than a few days late and a few rubles – err, yuan, short.
Written by. Dr. John C.K. Daly for OilPrice.com. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author, Dr. John C.K. Daly. For more information on oil prices and other commodity related topics please visit www.oilprice.com
China Winning the Race for Central Asia’s Energy Riches
Jul 22nd
Many western analysts have described the post-Soviet tussle for Caspain and Central Asian energy reserves as the new “Great Game, except this time around, Russia is facing the U.S. rather than the British empire.
To a dispassionate outside observer however, what is most striking about the prolonged wrangle between Moscow and Washington for hydrocarbons, military bases and influence is the emergence of an understated sly newcomer who has managed to bag many of the region’s assets – China.
There are many reasons for this, despite the fact that both Russia and the U.S. both seemed to hold winning hands.
For Moscow, quite aside from its colonialist legacy was the fact that it controlled the Truboprovodnaiia sistema Sredniaia Aziia-Tsentr (the Central Asia-Center, or SATS, pipeline system.) Russia’s natural gas monopoly Gazprom controls the SATS complex of pipelines, which run from Turkmenistan via Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan to Russia. The SATS eastern branch consists of SATS-1, 2, 4 and 5 pipelines, which were built between 1960 and 1988. Construction began after the discovery of Turkmenistan’s Dzharkak field, with the first SATS section coming online in 1960, while SATS-4 was commissioned in 1973. Simply put, after the 1991 collapse of the USSR, Central Asia’s only opportunity for energy exports was controlled by Russia, which was determined to obey its new-found capitalist mantra of “buy cheap and sell dear.”
And where did Gazprom sell its Central Asian natural gas?
Europe, or course.
In 2008 Gazprom’s sales to the European Union were nearly 170 billion cubic meters (bcm) out of a production of 550 bcm. Gazprom’s share in the global and Russian natural gas production is 17.3 percent and 85 percent, respectively. Turkmen exports represent a quarter of Gazprom’s EU exports, but the company also buys 15 bcm of Kazakh gas and 7 bcm of Uzbek gas.
The boulder in Gazprom’s shoe is that the Russian domestic market, which is heavily subsidized, now accounts for about 70 percent of the company’s production, with domestic consumption rising by more than 3 bcm a year. Accordingly, to free up as much indigenous production as possible for export, one-third of Russian internal gas usage has to be supplied from non-Gazprom sources.
And the Americans?
Well, after 1991 they showed up, checkbooks and democracy and human rights lectures in hand, determined as much as Moscow to buy local assets at fire-sale prices. Unlike oil, natural gas can only be pipelined or, in an expensive procedure, liquefied for transport.
Which left the Central Asians irritated at both parties.
Enter Beijing – cash to hand and no annoying lectures about political systems or human rights.
On 14 December 2009 China and Turkmenistan formally opened the first section of a 1,139 mile-long, 40 bcm per year natural gas pipeline, financed by China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), China’s largest oil and gas producer and supplier. The Turkmenistan-China pipeline has since been expanded to carry Uzbek and Kazakh natural gas.
More pipelines flowing eastwards from Central Asia are under construction.
The moral of this story seems clear – those who simply show up with cash and sign mutually beneficial contracts are likely to prevail over Kremlin denizens expecting gratitude for a century of servitude, much less Yankee Wall St wizards seeking to screw the locals whilst prattling on about free markets and democracy. The final race for Central Asian energy is far from over, but at the moment, Beijing’s mandarins are winning.
Written by. Dr. John C.K. Daly for OilPrice.com. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author, Dr. John C.K. Daly. For more information on oil prices and other commodity related topics please visit www.oilprice.com
U.S. Launches 1st Federal Electric Vehicle Pilot
May 31st
Solar Impulse Successfully Lands In Brussels
The solar airplane which made the trip to Brussels on May 13 using the sun as its only energy source is being exposed in the European Capital until May 26. On Wednesday the Solar Impulse team led by Bertrand Piccard and André Borschberg played host to Jo Leinen (S&D, Germany), President of the Environment Committee of the European Parliament. Solar Impulse co-founders Bertrand Piccard and André Borschberg’s first aim is to demonstrate the enormous potential of new technologies for saving energy and applying renewable forms of energy. Available video includes general views and soundbites.
Obama Administration Takes Major Step toward Advanced Vehicles with New Fleet Management Practices and Launch of First Federal Electric Vehicle Pilot
Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, General Services Administrator Martha Johnson, and White House Council on Environmental Quality Chair Nancy Sutley announced a major step in moving the Federal fleet further towards advanced vehicles and decreased petroleum consumption, while also cutting costs associated with fuel consumption. Furthering the Administration’s goals to cut oil imports by one-third by 2025 and to put one million advanced vehicles on the road by 2015, President Obama issued a Presidential Memorandum today directing agencies to implement government wide fleet management practices that will ensure the Federal Government is leading by example in fuel efficiency and innovative technology. Implementation of these new requirements will move the government to purchasing 100 percent alternative fuel vehicles by 2015 and drive agencies to meet the required 30 percent decrease in petroleum consumption by 2020 under Executive Order 13514 on Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance signed by President Obama in October 2009.
In conjunction with the Memorandum, the General Services Administration (GSA) today launched a pilot project to incorporate electric vehicles and technologies into the Federal fleet. GSA announced its initial purchase of more than 100 electric vehicles for a vehicle pilot. These vehicles will be leased to 20 agencies, including the Department of Energy, and will be located in Washington, DC; Detroit, MI; Los Angeles, CA; San Diego, CA; and San Francisco, CA. As manager of Federal fleets and buildings, GSA will also coordinate with these agencies to establish necessary infrastructure for fueling and recharging at Federal building locations receiving the first round of vehicles.
First Fuel Cell to Power Residential Building in New York
The Octagon, a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design® (LEED) Silver 500-unit apartment community on Roosevelt Island, made green history by becoming the first residential building in the State of New York to be powered and heated by a 400 kilowatt (kW) fuel cell from UTC Power. This installation marks a paradigm shift in the State’s use of clean energy technologies, made possible through New York’s progressive stance on energy policy. The project was supported by $1.2 million in financial incentives from the New York StateEnergy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA). The fuel cell arrived on Roosevelt Island this winter and is now operating at full capacity. The fuel cell, a PureCell® System Model 400, is a combined heat and power (CHP) system that represents a game-changing technology. It converts natural gas to electricity and heat through a combustion-free, electrochemical process to provide power and heat to meet the majority of the apartment building’s energy demand. The energy efficiency achieved by the fuel cell is significantly higher than the energy received from the grid and emissions are negligible. Additionally, the fuel cell’s process heat is captured to satisfy the building’s space heating and domestic water requirements.
Loading ...
Recent Comments