30 replies to this topic

[dslot12]

Hello all,
First time poster here. The controversy about whether natural gas is a viable and greener energy source than our current means of generating electricity is a hotly debated topic. I made a video that I think is very relevant to this topic as well as our energy future, and I encourage you to check it out! Search "Natural Gas - A Solution" by 23rdcenturyslang on YouTube and let me know what you think!

[Shortpoet-GTD]

I will answer with this link-
http://www.altenergy...dsgas-fracking/

It may reduce emissions and be cleaner than coal, but thanks to chaney and the deal he struck with the epa
during his administration, we don't have the right to know the ingredients of the "secret sauce" they use
to extract it.
We do know it contains over 300 chemicals; that's 300+ too many.

Better than coal, but not by much.

(Here is the link for those that want to view it)

[Phil]

Cheney has been out of office over four years, Obama runs the EPA now.  If he wanted it changed it would be changed.  Just sayin' :<)

[yoder]

We've known for decades now that once the damage is done it is many times more difficult to undo in legislation.  The EPA has been defanged, defunded, and their hands tied behind their backs many times over by the Republican party, who then say, without even trying to look serious, "The EPA is destroying (fill in the blank for their favorite polluting industry of the week)."

[still learning]

Phil, on 15 April 2013 - 01:50 PM, said:

Cheney has been out of office over four years, Obama runs the EPA now.  If he wanted it changed it would be changed.  Just sayin' :<)

I think that when Shortpoet was referring to Cheney and "secret sauce" it was in reference to something that is actually written into law and is something that neither the EPA nor the President can simply ignore or override.   http://www.marcellus...-Energy-Act.htm   Congress could change the law.

This exemption to the federal Safe Drinking Water Act maks it harder for the EPA to regulate fracking.  Theoretically, the individual states could do the job. Some do.

[Phil]

The fact remains they had two full years of complete control of government.  I seriously doubt changing the EPA ban would have been nearly as hard as passing Obamacare and that happened.  If you are saying BP's campaign donation to Obama was money well spent, then you might be on to something! :<)

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Phil, on 18 April 2013 - 09:55 PM, said:

The fact remains they had two full years of complete control of government.

Hint-filibuster.

[Phil]

Hint, Obamacare passed. :<)

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Article from 2010-


"In 2005, at the urging of Vice President Cheney, fracking fluids were exempted from the Clean Water Act after the companies that own the patents on the process raised concerns about disclosing proprietary formulas - if they had to meet the Act's standards they would have to reveal the chemical composition which competitors could then steal.
Fair enough, but this also exempts these companies from having to meet the strict regulations that protect the nation's freshwater supply.
This was a sweetheart political deal and it probably doesn't surprise you that the the Vice President's former
employer Halliburton is one of the largest players in providing hydraulic fracturing services to gas companies."
Source

Article from 2011 (loophole still not closed-via Congress-not Obama)
"In 2005 Congress—at the behest of then Vice President Dick Cheney, a former CEO of gas driller Halliburton—exempted fracking from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Congress needs to close this so-called Halliburton loophole, as a bill co-sponsored by New York State Representative Maurice Hinchey would do.
The FRAC Act would also mandate public disclosure of all chemicals used in fracking across the nation."
Source

So far in 2013-
"Even though the FRAC Act has gained exactly zero traction in the U.S. Congress (even Henry Waxman intervened to stop its advance
back in 2010) two U.S. Senators – Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) – have nonetheless tried to bring it to life by
including the full text of the act as part of a bigger carbon tax bill.
That’s what makes a recent report by the Hudson Institute, entitled “Institutional Choices for Regulating Oil and Gas Wells,” incredibly timely, as the report makes it abundantly clear why this proposal is a less than stellar idea."
Source
Obama could maybe do something via executive order, but blaming him is not accurate.  It will take Congress to do it.

This is on chaney/halliburton and no one else. (still)

[Phil]

Funny, not a word about it from 2009-2011, when they had complete control.  Why didn't they include it with Obamacare?  After all, we had to pass it to know what was in it.  Then it would be too late to stop it.

Is ANYTHING ever Obama's fault? :<)

As EVIL as oil companies are, they have come to an agreement with major environmental groups on fracking standards.  Isn't this a bit of a moot issue now?

http://www.nbcnews.c...dards-1C8975363

P.S.  The original reason for keeping the exact mix off limits is it was a trade secret.  In the beginning when you are just starting a new process, it is important to keep your successes to yourself for competitive advantage.  Giving it to the EPA is putting it on record.

[Dingo]

I don't think natural gas is any kind of solution. As far as global warming, with the inevitable methane leakage, its contribution to ghg warming appears to be as bad as coal. However with the success by the Japanese in drilling for methane hydrate deep in the ocean it looks like something other than peak fossil fuel is going to have to step forward to head off disastor. This link gives you a little history of fossil fuel right up to the unhappy achievement of extractable methane hydrate, which appears to be a nearly unlimited tappable source.

http://grist.org/cli...run-out-of-oil/

**Moderation team edit-large portions of quotes are not allowed. The link is sufficient Thank you.

[still learning]

Dingo, on 03 May 2013 - 05:27 PM, said:

I don't think natural gas is any kind of solution......http://grist.org/cli...run-out-of-oil/

An excellent article you've linked to at Grist.  In my opinion anyway.

Strongly recommended reading.  Not sure I buy everything the author says, but definitely some food for thought.

The article is a little long for some people maybe, it's a pretty wide ranging treatment of some aspects of fossil fuels, especially oil and natural gas, not just methane hydrates.
I've been kind of skeptical about the possibility of significant commercial development of methane hydrates, too difficult for several reasons.  The author does point out though that since there appears to be so much of it, if only ten percent is commercercially feasable to extract, that's still a lot.

Looks like the article was originally at The Atlantic,  "What If We Never Run Out of Oil"    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/

[Phil]

A research team recently announced the successful test of methane hydrate extraction.  Looks like it's real, a decade or two seems right.

Of course the USGS just doubled the estimated oil available to N. Dakota, and as more and oil is found there is no rush to get to the methane just yet.  From what I've been reading, Africa is the next big oil story.  Much of it is undeveloped at present but by the end of the decade they too will have exploited major finds.

[Besoeker]

Phil, on 03 May 2013 - 10:33 PM, said:

Africa is the next big oil story.  Much of it is undeveloped at present but by the end of the decade they too will have exploited major finds.

Depends which country in Africa.
I spent a while in South Africa on various occasions. There have been embargoes on importing oil.
South Africa has gold and, as one wag said to me, "As long as we have the red gold we can always get the black gold."
As it happens, the reason for some of my visits there was to look at electrical equipment installed at gold mines. And that's where I got my forum name. I had a visitor's badge for one of the mines on my desk when I registered with a forum maybe ten years ago. Visitor one side. Besoeker on the other. Seemed appropriate. We are all visitors for a time. Birth, life, death.

On the other hand, Libya does have oil. I was there for the start-up of a regulating system for a gas turbine on an oilfield. Two hours flight into the Sahara from Tripoli.  The desert is amazing. Anyway, the project went well and we got the project to supply the second unit. It was shipped, installed and about to be commissioned. Then the troubles kicked off. Not surprisingly, the commissioning went on hold.
With the demise of Muammar, the commissioning is back on the cards for later this year.
I'll probably go myself - the guy I had teed up for the project got seriously ill and can't.

[Dingo]

still learning, on 03 May 2013 - 08:04 PM, said:

Looks like the article was originally at The Atlantic,  "What If We Never Run Out of Oil" http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/

Speaking of that article Kunstler isn't too pleased with the fossil fuel cornucopia thesis. He seems to think rising energy costs are going to sink our modern economies. http://kunstler.com/...-wish.html#more

I'm not endorsing this but according to him:

Quote

the capital does not exist to run non-cheap oil economies, or to continue indefinitely the production of non-cheap oil and gas, not to mention methane hydrates and other fantasy fuels.

[Phil]

He seems like a nut case, more about name calling than about actual facts.  What really lost me was his claim that oil companies are losing money with shale oil. Hmmm, record profits by losing money on every gallon!  Yea that makes total sense.   Oil companies cap wells when they no longer pay.  From other sources, with fracking, shale only costs $10-$15/gal to extract.  That even surprised me.

Oil companies are buying tanker rail cars like there's no tomorrow to ship tar sand oil from Canada, I suppose they are losing money on that too?     Keystone is not an enabler, it's a cost reduction, tar sands are already hitting our refineries.

I happen to think we have at least a century of recoverable oil, perhaps two, and by then they will most likely have solved the hydrate recovery challenge, giving us another few hundred years.   That's why the only real fossil killer is cheap renewables, comparatively expensive fossils won't happen for a long time.  The more we increase mileage, drive hybrids, etc., the longer oil will last.

[Besoeker]

Phil, on 05 May 2013 - 03:20 PM, said:

I happen to think we have at least a century of recoverable oil, perhaps two,

I don't know, but I'm inclined to think otherwise.

We have been extracting oil in serious quantities for about a century. The number of large (up to 5 bn barrels) has declined every decade since the 1960s. Oil is now being extracted in ever more difficult and hostile locations. The Deepwater Horizon incident is testament. Capping the leak was made very difficult because of the extreme pressures at the sea bed. We wouldn't be undertaking such projects if there were easier pickings. You might conclude the same thing about fracking. Yet another not so easy quest to get our hands on the black stuff.

In short, despite huge improvements in geology, it's getting harder to find, it's being found in decreasing quantities, in ever more difficult locations and, consequently, at greater cost. In a century we have discovered and used much of which there was to be discovered and used. Around 2000, Sadad I. Al Husseini, a Saudi oil geologist concluded that conventional oil production would plateau from 2004 for about 15 rears and then fall into a gradual, but irreversible, decline. He is not alone in suggesting that we are at or close to peak oil. Maybe they are right. If they are, then another century of recoverable oil would seem optimistic.

Phil, on 05 May 2013 - 03:20 PM, said:

That's why the only real fossil killer is cheap renewables, comparatively expensive fossils won't happen for a long time.  The more we increase mileage, drive hybrids, etc., the longer oil will last.

I more or less agree with that. On the basis of what I posted above, I think it's inevitable that the costs of extracting oil will increase in proportion to the difficulty in doing so and the decreasing supply will drive prices up. Sure, we can improve fuel consumption. Fuel cost at the pump is one of the reasons why British and other Europeans generally drive smaller and more economical cars than in North America. The car in my avatar is a 12-cylinder Jag. A lovely car, smooth, quiet, quick, and long since gone. Fuel prices saw its demise.

A little digression...
Currently in UK, a significant part of the price at the pump is tax - above 60%. A nice little earner for the Inland Revenue.

Whatever, more economical cars are a consequence of high fuel prices. And hybrids are becoming more popular. A couple of my colleagues have them. But will this make oil last longer? I don't know. With the emerging economies of India and China with vast populations and increasing personal wealth there is increasing vehicle ownership. And, consequently, an increased demand for the motion lotion.

How it will pan out, I don't know.

A long post by my usual standards but I hope it adds to the forum rather than detracts from it.

[Phil]

That does not jive with the EIA that projects we will be oil self sufficient by 2030.  While BP was drilling five miles deep, Brazil is drilling six, $90/bbl will support almost any exotic extraction.

The problem I have with running out of oil, is they've been predicting that for half a century and we keep finding more.  The latest I heard from environmentalists was 2030 for peak oil, that was before fracking and all the new discoveries.  My guess is that would put us out to at least 2060 I should think, perhaps even 2100 or more, (we don't know what we haven't discovered).  Everybody and their brother are salivating over arctic oil, who knows how much is up there.

Oil companies wouldn't be clamoring for Keystone if it didn't pay off, they'd just continue to ship it by rail like they are doing now.

At some point the cost curves will cross as you say, but gas would have to get a lot more expensive for that to happen and that isn't happening any time soon.  As reported the UK is very slow to buy EV's despite your expensive gas.  Think of how much worse that is in the US with our relatively cheap gas!

In fact Ford just announced they were practically doubling their workforce to build more F-150's, (full sized trucks).  For almost every year the last 30 or so, the hottest selling car has been a Ford F-150 truck.  They build a beefy limited edition called the Raptor and can't keep them in stock.

The only way to move that crossover up substantially is cheaper renewables.  The US economy depends on cheap energy so just raising taxes will actually be detrimental.  Gas taxes are highly regressive, hitting the poor the worst, so in the end I doubt the current progressive government would raise them substantially, despite rhetoric. otherwise.

Yes, China and India will move in peak oil, but hybrids and other high mileage vehicles will move it out.  One bends the curve up, the other down.

[Besoeker]

Phil, on 05 May 2013 - 11:14 PM, said:

That does not jive with the EIA that projects we will be oil self sufficient by 2030.

You're right. It doesn't. But the EIA seems to be out of step with others.
Christophr de Margerie, head of oil giant Total and Joeren van der Meer of Shell among them.
And in contrast to the EIA's prediction of continued growth until 2030, it has levelled off as predicted by
Al Husseini in 2002.

UK used to have an oil industry supported by North Sea production - a pretty harsh environment as I can testify from personal experience.  It is almost out of sight now.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Phil, on 05 May 2013 - 03:20 PM, said:

Keystone is not an enabler, it's a cost reduction, tar sands are already hitting our refineries.

I happen to think we have at least a century of recoverable oil, perhaps two,

Spoken on a green forum. I'm speechless.

See also-
http://www.altenergy..._280#entry25221

But back to natural gas-

"During the fracking process, millions of gallons of fracking fluid; a mixture of water, sand
and toxic chemicals are injected into the ground to break up the shale and release natural gas.
While each company's formula is a closely guarded secret (thanks to chaney/halliburton-my
insert not from the article), in some cases the mix includes known carcinogens."
http://www.gracelink...ng-introduction