Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Natural Gas Thread Pt. 2

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Re: THE Natural Gas Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Wed 31 Jan 2018, 13:35:00

The EPA has outlawed venting of NG because it is a pollutant. It is also a powerful greenhouse gas...about 60X more effective then CO2.

Nonetheless, CH4 emissions from the oil and gas industry have risen rapidly since 2005 to the point that global methane emissions are causing a sharp rise in global atmospheric methane levels. This in turn is contributing to the significant rise in global temperatures we are seeing, with a global T increase of 0.4°C just over the last four years.


http://eidclimate.org/methane-emissions-continue-decline-top-oil-gas-basins/

Based on the latest data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, EID’s report shows methane emissions from the most productive shale basins in the country have fallen considerably in the past six years. These reductions have been achieved even as oil and natural gas production has increased 54 percent and 16 percent, respectively, during that time thanks to advances in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing technology.


Despite the fact that production in the Permian doubled from 2011 to 2016, methane emissions have decreased 6.3 percent, according to GHGRP data.


EPA data also show that methane emissions in the Williston Basin — home of the Bakken Shale in North Dakota and Montana — have fallen 8.3 percent from 2011 to 2016. These declines came at the same time that oil and natural gas production in the region has quadrupled, as the following EIA graphics show
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5784
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: THE Natural Gas Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Plantagenet » Wed 31 Jan 2018, 13:56:44

global methane emissions are causing a sharp rise in global atmospheric methane levels.

the U.S. ... methane


1. The US is a major source of methane going into the atmosphere. The 6-8% reductions in CH4 leaks from some US oil basins that you are touting sound nice, until you do the math and find that 92-94% of the outrageous amount of CH4 found leaking into the atmosphere is STILL leaking into the atmosphere. And there are more methane leaks from NG infrastructure such as pipelines and storage facilities all around the world.

2. The NASA paper I link to above shows clearly that there isn't any doubt that global methane levels in the atmosphere are spiking. Fur†hermore, isotopic analyses of the methane show it is mainly derived from the oil and gas industry.

3. The increasing CH4 concentration in the atmosphere is an important contributor to global warming.

Image

Cheers!
"Its a brave new world"
---President Obama, 4/25/16
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 20895
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: THE Natural Gas Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Wed 31 Jan 2018, 14:49:17

Those figures you are quoting just do not correlate with the IPCC data.
Image
The methane you mention as a huge problem is smaller than chloroflourocarbons, for example.
Image
I'll acknowledge that it is a more potent GHG when it is present but both carbon dioxide and chloroflorocarbons remain in the atmosphere far longer before they disperse and disassociate.

That's always the problem with statistics. There are so many and they contradict one another. The IPCC for example has a very poor accuracy record, where does your data in that NASA paper come from? Because NASA and NOAA for example also produce the Earthsat data that shows the globe is cooling not warming.

It's the curse of search engines. You can search out confirmation for about any position, with no way of knowing what is a credible source. That's what peer reviews are for.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4554
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: THE Natural Gas Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Plantagenet » Wed 31 Jan 2018, 15:40:29

KaiserJeep wrote:Those figures you are quoting just do not correlate with the IPCC data.


The IPCC data is based on old and out-of-date estimates of CH4 emissions rather then on hard data. Basically the IPCC asked various industries how much CH4 they emitted. However, these older estimates have proven to be woefully wrong.

In 2013 a paper published in Nature used newer methods, like FLIR imaging, and they found that virtually all NG pipelines, storage facilities, wellheads, etc. are leaking methane. Other studies have replicated this result. Methane leaks are almost ubiquitous. This required a major increase in estimated CH4 emissions coming from the oil and gas sector.

These studies found that as much as 9% (NINE PERCENT!!!) of all the natural gas produced from wells in some areas eventually leaks into the atmosphere. It is amazing how much CH4 is leaking out---by any standard its an unacceptably huge amount.

NATURE: methane-leaks-erode-green-credentials-of-natural-gas

Some newer data comes from NASA (see my link above) and involves imaging and isotopic analysis of methane in the atmosphere. The isotopic signature of hydrocarbons is distinctive and different from the methane released from other sources. The NASA data definitively shows that over half of the methane in the atmosphere is coming from the oil and gas industry----its still leaking out everywhere from the global natural gas infrastructure system.

Image
Methane leaking from a natural gas pipeline detected with FLIR infrared imaging technology. Leaks like this turn out to be occurring virtually everywhere throughout the natural gas production, transportation, storage, and energy generation infrastructure.

Cheers!
Last edited by Plantagenet on Wed 31 Jan 2018, 15:51:19, edited 2 times in total.
"Its a brave new world"
---President Obama, 4/25/16
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 20895
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: THE Natural Gas Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Wed 31 Jan 2018, 15:47:36

. The US is a major source of methane going into the atmosphere. The 6-8% reductions in CH4 leaks from some US oil basins that you are touting sound nice, until you do the math and find that 92-94% of the outrageous amount of CH4 found leaking into the atmosphere is STILL leaking into the atmosphere. And there are more methane leaks from NG infrastructure such as pipelines and storage facilities all around the world.


You miss the point of the study. The methane emissions over all of the shale basins have been decreasing at the same time production has been increasing. That says there is a serious disconnect. You can see that disconnect by looking at NOAA surface stations in Colorado, Oklahoma and Texas all of which show a disconnect of increasing methane with increasing production.

2. The NASA paper I link to above shows clearly that there isn't any doubt that global methane levels in the atmosphere are spiking. Fur†hermore, isotopic analyses of the methane show it is mainly derived from the oil and gas industry


I scanned the paper but did not find this reference. The analysis done uses a satellite-based analysis of CH4 from global forest fires to try and come up with a mix of 3 different potential sources based on box models. They did not measure directly CH3 emissions from oil and gas. The isotope signature for the 3 different sources merely helps them put together possible mixing models for testing in the box models. Please show us where they stated that “methane levels in the atmosphere are spiking”. That is certainly not backed up by the NOAA ESRL data which shows the rise in methane has been at a constant rate since 2008.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5784
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: THE Natural Gas Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Plantagenet » Wed 31 Jan 2018, 16:16:13

. The US is a major source of methane going into the atmosphere. The 6-8% reductions in CH4 leaks from some US oil basins that you are touting sound nice, until you do the math and find that 92-94% of the outrageous amount of CH4 found leaking into the atmosphere is STILL leaking into the atmosphere. And there are more methane leaks from NG infrastructure such as pipelines and storage facilities all around the world.

You miss the point of the study. The methane emissions over all of the shale basins have been decreasing at the same time production has been increasing.


Actually you are missing the point. Decreasing methane emissions just slightly from an unacceptably high level means methane leaks from the oil and gas biz remain at unacceptably high levels.


Fur†hermore, isotopic analyses of the methane show it is mainly derived from the oil and gas industry

I scanned the paper but did not find this reference..


How could you read it and not see the discussion of isotopes? Are your reading comprehension skills really that poor?

OK, that was a cheap shot, but this isn't the first time you haven't been able to understand what you read in a link. OK--as usual I'll help you out. I'll quote the relevant sections from the paper below since you can't read well enough to find them yourself.

Carbon isotopes in the methane molecules are one clue. Of the three methane sources examined in the new study, emissions from fires contain the largest percentage of heavy carbon isotopes, microbial emissions have the smallest, and fossil fuel emissions are in between. Another clue is ethane, which (like methane) is a component of natural gas. An increase in atmospheric ethane indicates increasing fossil fuel sources. Fires emit carbon monoxide as well as methane, and measurements of that gas are a final clue.

Worden's team used carbon monoxide and methane data from the Measurements of Pollutants in the Troposphere instrument on NASA's Terra satellite and the Tropospheric Emission Spectrometer instrument on NASA's Aura to quantify fire emissions of methane. The results show these emissions have been decreasing much more rapidly than expected.

Combining isotopic evidence from ground surface measurements with the newly calculated fire emissions, the team showed that about 17 teragrams per year of the increase is due to fossil fuels, another 12 is from wetlands or rice farming, while fires are decreasing by about 4 teragrams per year. The three numbers combine to 25 teragrams a year — the same as the observed increase.


I'll explain it to you again, since you probably still don't get it, even after I copied this section out for you. I recommend you read slowly and look up the words you don't understand.

First I'd better explain to you what a teragram is....One teragram equals about 1.1 million U.S. tons —

The isotopic data allows the NASA scientists to identify which components of the methane in the atmosphere come from the oil and gas biz. The data shows that about 17 teragrams of the observed 25 teragram increase in methane comes from fossil fuels, i.e. the oil and gas biz. Since 17 teragrams is more than half of 25 teragram, it means that over half the observed increase....or a majority of the new increase...is coming coming from the oil and gas biz. Get it now?

Image
Methane leaks from oil wells, pipelines and storage tanks are bad. They are responsible for the majority of the observed increase in methane to the atmosphere.

Cheers!
"Its a brave new world"
---President Obama, 4/25/16
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 20895
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: THE Natural Gas Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Wed 31 Jan 2018, 16:51:57

Look dipshit, you clearly don't understand what is being done, but for some reason that never stops you from pretending, you are smarter than everyone else. They have a measurement of total global CH4 and it's isotopic components from satellites. As the authors stated previously any attempt to tie emissions from various sources resulted in way more CH4 than has been measured.
The isotopic mixture cannot tell them how much has come from any one of the three simply because it is a mix and different combinations can result in a very similar mix.
This is what they say in the Introduction:
However, determining the relative contributions of anthropogenic, biogeochemical, and chemical drivers of methane trends has been extremely challenging and consequently there is effectively no confidence in projections of future atmospheric methane concentrations. The striking disagreement from several recent studies explaining the changes to atmospheric methane since 2006 is likely due to the assumptions (and extrapolations) involved in attributing source variability to the observed changes in atmospheric methane. For example, surface measurements of CH4 and its isotopic composition suggest a shift of methane sources toward increasing tropical biogenic (BG) sources. However, this explanation appears to directly conflict with observations of increasing FF sources that range between 5 and 25 Tg CH4 per year based on ethane/CH4 ratios as well as studies based on satellite-based total column methane measurements. Other studies show that we cannot rule out inter-annual variations in the hydroxyl radical (OH) chemical methane sink as the cause; however, these studies do not directly show changes in atmospheric OH or provide a mechanistic reason for a change.

This is why after describing their analysis of emissions from fires dropping they went to a box model in order to test various combinations of emissions to arrive at what could best describe the current breakdown of methane isotopes assuming they are correct with the analysis of a significant drop in fire sources. They did not measure directly how much oil and gas contributed because as they stated there are a number of possibilities to come up with the mix. Their results fall out of their box model.

As to your claimed reference....what you said was they claimed methane was spiking....they did not.. They pointed out what the measurement is now but did not show how this was a "spike" from anything measured previously. The output based on NOAA data from various stations around the world demonstrate that and given it is a well-mixed gas the measurements at Mauna Loa are all you need. Please show us all where there is a recent spike in methane. IT isn't there.

Image

Their argument is about attribution, not an overall increase in emission.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5784
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: THE Natural Gas Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Plantagenet » Wed 31 Jan 2018, 17:06:41

rockdoc123 wrote:Look dipshit......


Get a grip on yourself, crockdoc.

You're acting like a petulant child.....no need to get so wee-wee'd up over nothing.

Cheers! :)
"Its a brave new world"
---President Obama, 4/25/16
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 20895
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: THE Natural Gas Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Wed 31 Jan 2018, 17:29:53

Get a grip on yourself, crockdoc.


I suggest you need to read your first post and then read the EID study based on actual measured emissions from the oil and gas producing areas.

If there was a huge problem the increased drilling and production should have resulted in a significant increase in methane emissions. The opposite is happening, production is increasing and measured emissions are decreasing. This is not the significant problem you would like everyone to believe regardless of your misunderstanding of papers you link to.

And that is backed up by a previous paper:

Schwietzke, S, et al, 2016. Upward revision of global fossil fuel methane emissions based on isotope database. Nature. 538, pp 88-91

In a similar manner these researchers use box models to attempt to breakdown contribution of CH4 from various sources. What they found was that although their analysis suggested the percentage contribution to total CH4 was higher than estimated in other studies that there had been virtually no increase in CH4 from fossil fuels from the mid-eighties through to 2014.

Accounting for previously neglected FFgeo, our correction of 20%–60% higher CH4 emissions from natural gas, oil and coal production and use implies a greater potential for industry efficiency improvements to mitigate anthropogenic climate forcing. Yet, this study does not confirm an upward trend of FFind emissions in global CH4 inventories despite the large increase in natural gas, oil and coal production and use over the past three decades. Instead, this study finds that natural-gas CH4 emissions per unit of production have declined from about 8% in the mid-1980 s to about 2% in the late 2000s and early 2010s.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5784
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: THE Natural Gas Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Plantagenet » Wed 31 Jan 2018, 21:59:00

If there was a huge problem the increased drilling and production should have resulted in a significant increase in methane emissions.


Is your little potty mouth shut tight and the temper tantrum is over now? You've got control of yourself again? Good.

Then lets discuss this topic once last time.

First lets consider your claim that increased drilling must inevitably mean increases in methane production. Can't you figure out why this hasn't happened? Do I have to explain everything to you three times?

Ok [sigh]. Here it is for the THIRD time.

The reason there hasn't been an increase in methane emissions in some oil producing regions is that there has been an aggressive effort to track down and stop the methane leaks. As I've already explained to you, FLIR thermal IR imaging and other modern methods can spot the methane leaks. Then the oilcos can fix them. Thats the good news. However, as your own links said, the effort hasn't been totally successful as methane leaks in US oil basins continue at high levels just 6-8% below where they were a few years ago. Thats the bad news.

production is increasing and measured emissions are decreasing.


While your statement is true for some individual basins in the USA, on a global basis emissions from fossil fuels are INCREASING. Consider the facts:

1. There has been a recent increase in atmospheric methane. I know you dispute this, but the NASA report I linked to above begins: A new NASA-led study has solved a puzzle involving the recent rise in atmospheric methane, a potent greenhouse gas Surely even you, in spite of your reading comprehension problems, can can understand that sentence. It says there has been a "recent rise in atmospheric methane."

Do you understand that now?

2. OK...if you are capable of understanding point #1, i.e. that there has been a recent rise in atmospheric methane, then the next question is---where is the new methane coming from? Again, the new NASA report has the answer---the new methane is mainly coming from fossil fuels, i.e. the oil and gas sector. The NASA report says: Methane emissions are increasing by about 25 teragrams a year, and it also says that fossil fuels account for about 15 teragrams of this increase. That means about 60% of the global increase in atmospheric methane is coming from increased methane losses from the oil and gas industry.

Can you understand those sentences? Do you understand the math now? Do you get now that global methane flux to the atmosphere from fossil fuels is going up at ca. 15 teragrams a year?

Image
Really, when you control your emotions and think about these things in a rational way its not so very complicated, is it?

Cheers!
"Its a brave new world"
---President Obama, 4/25/16
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 20895
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: THE Natural Gas Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Wed 31 Jan 2018, 23:54:21

While your statement is true for some individual basins in the USA, on a global basis emissions from fossil fuels are INCREASING. Consider the facts:


where has the greatest increase in production occurred in the past few years? It is the US. And your argument originally was focussed on natural gas wells in the shale basins in the US. This is what you said:

The huge increase in methane from the oil and gas industry partly reflects the increasing use of NG in US power plants, with concomitant leaks of CH4 from fracked wells, pipes, storage containers, etc. all through the US energy system.


And as usual you pivot when trapped in an incorrect assumption and now turn it into "global emissions". As far as I am aware nobody has gone around measuring CH4 leaks from wells around the world as EPA has done in the US. Just try and do that in a place like Algeria or Qatar two countries with huge natural gas production.

There has been a recent increase in atmospheric methane. I know you dispute this, but the NASA report I linked to above begins: A new NASA-led study has solved a puzzle involving the recent rise in atmospheric methane, a potent greenhouse gas Surely even you, in spite of your reading comprehension problems, can can understand that sentence. It says there has been a "recent rise in atmospheric methane.


there is only one person in this argument with a reading comprehension problem and it sure isn't me. A "recent rise in atmospheric methane" just means it is higher than it was last year, not that the rate has increased or "spiked" as you stated.
The NASA paper I link to above shows clearly that there isn't any doubt that global methane levels in the atmosphere are spiking.


Once again this is demonstrated by the NOAA data which everyone uses as their reference point. If you have data to show it spiked or if you can show a quote where they said spiked then fine. They didn't. Methane actually rose at a much higher rate than it has recently from the start of the instrumental record to the nineties, flattened for a number of years and then continued to rise from the eighties onward. It is a fairly consistent rate with no "spikes". Just look at the Mauna Loa data, it is what everyone else refers to.

You also said this:

Nonetheless, CH4 emissions from the oil and gas industry have risen rapidly since 2005 to the point that global methane emissions are causing a sharp rise in global atmospheric methane levels


sharp rise infers an increased rate not just an increase in pbb....please demonstrate this for all of us. As I've shown the rate of increase in methane prior to the nineties was greater than the period of 2008 onwards and the US oil and gas industry was not booming at that time. When you look at the CH4 NOAA records for TX, Oklahoma and Colorado they are not matched at all with the increased oil and gas activity in those areas. That needs to be explained as well, perhaps you will invoke aliens having abducted too many cows from those particular states?

Really, when you control your emotions and think about these things in a rational way its not so very complicated, is it?


I think you need to read your own pedantic verbal salad which seems to almost always be based on misunderstanding either the topic published what you have actually claimed or, in general, the English language. Much like your ridiculous claim about water flooding being EOR and how you were absolutely sure about this, even misquoting from the Schlumberger dictionary the level of your claims are not only incorrect but delivered with an exceedingly annoying self-satisfied tone.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5784
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: THE Natural Gas Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Plantagenet » Thu 01 Feb 2018, 00:10:59

As far as I am aware nobody has gone around measuring CH4 leaks from wells around the world as EPA has done in the US. Just try and do that in a place like Algeria or Qatar two countries with huge natural gas production.


You still don't understand what I've posted, even after I've repeated it three times now. You really do have a reading comprehension problem, you know.

Lets try one more time. Hopefully the FOURTH time will do it.

The NASA data isn't based on data from individual wells in separate oilfields---that was in a different paper. Do you get that? OK---let try the next thing.

The NASA report I linked to is discussing the total amount of methane in the atmosphere. Got that now as well?

The NASA report says they can determine that the methane in the atmosphere comes from different sources because it has different isotopic characteristics. In particular, they can determine how much atmospheric methane comes from fossil fuels. Thats three different ideas so far---do you have them all in your mind. If so, lets go for the conclusion:

OK---here comes the most important thing---the data: NASA reports that the amount of methane in the atmosphere is increasing by 25 teragrams per year, with 15 teragrams or 60% of the annual increase in methane in the global atmosphere coming from fossil fuels.

OKAY---hope you got all that. Three times is the charm, they say, and now I've repeated it for you FOUR TIMES! Wow! :) :P :roll:

CHEERS!
"Its a brave new world"
---President Obama, 4/25/16
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 20895
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: THE Natural Gas Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Thu 01 Feb 2018, 11:02:40

The NASA report says they can determine that the methane in the atmosphere comes from different sources because it has different isotopic characteristics. In particular, they can determine how much atmospheric methane comes from fossil fuels. Thats three different ideas so far---do you have them all in your mind. If so, lets go for the conclusion:


That is incorrect. They cannot measure directly how much is due to the various sources it requires them to run models which they do based on their measured CH4 isotopic mix and the notion they have that biotic mass burning has decreased. You have this mistaken impression they can tell from a CH4 sample how much came from the various sources without any sort of models, not the case at all.
The authors themselves point to the differing results from top down studies (such as theirs) with bottoms up studies (such as the EIA) conducts

You still don't understand what I've posted,


I quoted you several times as saying that methane levels were spiking due to leakage of methane from wells which is patently incorrect. It was your comment and pretty clear...the word "spiking" is incorrect. But you since tried to change the original argument.

The NASA data isn't based on data from individual wells in separate oilfields---that was in a different paper. Do you get that? OK---let try the next thing.


which is exactly what I said, the EIA measure actual emissions, the top down studies like the one you reference tries to torture them out of the data.

Three times is the charm, they say, and now I've repeated it for you FOUR TIMES! Wow


well maybe if you quit discussing a strawman argument.

My original point was that although you want to claim that the increase in total methane is all to do with increased production of natural gas and leakage of methane. As was shown by two studies I linked to, one which measured bottoms up from shale basins in the US and found methane was decreasing while production was in some cases more than doubling and the other that based on a tops down approach pointed to the fact there has been a decrease globally of CH4 emissions from natural gas since the 1980's. So if total methane has continued to rise but the emission contribution from natural gas has actually decreased over that time period then is is pretty unlikely for natural gas to be the main culprit in global rise of methane and hence not responsible for the increase in temperature as you claimed in your original post. Now if you can demonstrate that CH4 emissions from natural gas have instead increased over time and argue why that is correct and the other papers are wrong (including the EiA) then have at it.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5784
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: THE Natural Gas Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Plantagenet » Thu 01 Feb 2018, 12:30:57

The NASA report says they can determine that the methane in the atmosphere comes from different sources because it has different isotopic characteristics.


That is incorrect.


Yes is it correct. Its absolutely totally 100% correct. Stop being such a dim bulb and face facts.

First you said you couldn't even find the section about the isotopic work in the NASA paper I linked concerning NASA's isotopic work on atmospheric methane. That was pretty silly since it was the main part of the report. OK---so you can't read very well. Lots of people can't read very well. So I copied it and pasted it and highlighted in bold for you the parts that were relevant to the use of isotopic characteristics of methane. Its not a very complicated idea, really. The fact that there are distinctive isotopic characteristics that indicate the provenance of CH4 derived from fossil fuel sources has been known for decades.

Obviously, if you can't understand this simple idea, then you won't understand the rest of the report, and you won't understand what it means.

And lo, so it has come to pass.

Image
Methane in the atmosphere derived from different sources has different isotopic characteristics that allow the determination of its provenance. Thats not such a hard idea to understand, it it? See the big red oval in the center of diagram labeled "natural gas?" Thats where the portion of methane in the atmosphere derived from natural gas plots when atmospheric samples are run through a mass spectrometer. You do know what a mass spectrometer is I hope, because I don't want to explain that to you as well.

Cheers!
"Its a brave new world"
---President Obama, 4/25/16
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 20895
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: THE Natural Gas Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Thu 01 Feb 2018, 17:45:27

OK---so you can't read very well. Lots of people can't read very well. So I copied it and pasted it and highlighted in bold for you the parts that were relevant to the use of isotopic characteristics of methane. Its not a very complicated idea, really. The fact that there are distinctive isotopic characteristics that indicate the provenance of CH4 derived from fossil fuel sources has been known for decades.

Obviously, if you can't understand this simple idea, then you won't understand the rest of the report, and you won't understand what it means.


Read the damned paper which I am now convinced you never did but instead probably got your information from a news release (as is your normal modus operandi)

Worden, J. R. et al, Reduced biomass burning emissions reconcile conflicting estimates of the post-2006 atmospheric methane budget. Nature communications. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-017-02246-0

Here is what actually the paper is about (versus what you are trying to characterize).They got all of their estimates of fossil fuel contributions from the paper I previously quoted (Schwietzke, S et al, 2016) that is quite obvious from their Table 1. They did not measure it themselves, in fact the entire paper deals specifically with looking at a decrease in biomass area burned and then figuring out how that impacts the CH4 mass balance based on previous estimates. Simply put because they assess that biomass burning has contributed less then the other sources (e.g. fossil fuels) must take up the slack. That is all they did. It isn’t a paper where they went out and measured isotopes trying to ascertain how much fossil fuels contributed, indeed what they did was to back out biomass burning CH4 using the following methodology:

As discussed in the following sections, we first quantify monthly CO fluxes and their uncertainties at monthly timescales on a 5 × 4° (longitude × latitude) grid using measurements of CO concentrations from the Terra Measurements of Pollution in the Troposphere (MOPITT) satellite instrument (V6J multi-spectral product40 and the adjoint version of GEOS-Chem31). CO fluxes are then re-partitioned to the CO emission types plus uncertainties on each 5 × 4° grid cell using a Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo approach25,41 that accounts for the a priori and a posteriori uncertainties of the BB emissions and other CO emissions. Estimates of the CH4 emissions and their uncertainties are then calculated by multiplying BB CO emissions by the GFED-based estimate of each fire-type contribution, the expected CH4/CO emission factors for all fire types within each grid cell, and the uncertainties of the GFED-recommended emission factors. The emission factor uncertainties are tested with CH4 and CO measurements from the Aura TES instrument


And if you go to the source of their data on fossil fuel contribution to CH4 (which I previously gave the reference to).

Schwietzke, S, et al, 2016. Upward revision of global fossil fuel methane emissions based on isotope database. Nature. 538, pp 88-91

They talk about how they arrived at their data (hint no measurements were made).

The sample sizes of δ13Csource values used in published global CH4 budgets are either small (N < 100, based on cited original measurements) or unknown, uncertainties are rarely applied, and global representativeness is lacking (especially in the tropics and the Southern Hemisphere), but some δ13Csource values have nevertheless taken on canonical status with few references to primary sources (for example, refs 3, 4, 9 and 10; see full list of references in Supplementary Information section 8). We have compiled the most comprehensive δ13Csource database to date (see ref. 14 and Supplementary Information sections 3–5 for complete list of data, metadata and references) including 9,468 δ13CFF, δ13Cmic and δ13CBB original measurements from the peer-reviewed literature and other publicly available sources to define globally weighted average δ13CFF (time-dependent), δ13Cmic, and δ13CBB with well defined uncertainties. These data allowed us to revisit the source attribution of global CH4 emissions since the 1980s by applying an atmospheric box-model to global atmospheric CH4 and δ13Catm measurements (and avoiding the use of a priori FFtot and microbial source strengths), thus maximizing the CH4 and δ13Catm constraints.


And the manner by which they used this data that was compiled from literature was:

Our box-model applies Monte Carlo techniques to estimate global FFtot and microbial CH4 emissions and uncertainties as a function of δ13Csource, of isotope fractionation during oxidation (OH + CH4), of the uncertainties of both of these values, and of other factors (see Supplementary Table 1). We also estimated FFind emissions by subtracting FFgeo emissions from FFtot emissions. This allowed us to calculate global long-term trends in the Fugitive Emission Rate (FER), which is the fraction of natural gas production lost to the atmosphere through its lifecycle (production, processing, transport and use), and is a critical parameter for evaluating the climatic impact of natural gas as a fuel


given you never read any of this prior to pontificating about the measurement of CH4 isotopes let me summarize:

The NASA paper never measured CH4 for any reason other than determining biomass burning amounts through time. They did not directly measure fossil fuel originated CH4. They got all of that information from a previous paper and those authors got their information from a literature search and compilation (with no quality control, ie. assumed all values were equally relevant). The numbers that Worden et al (NASA) used were based on the box model analysis conducted by Schwietke et al. And the final numbers that Worden et al end up with regarding contribution of fossil fuels to current CH4 mass balance was arrived at through their own box model that took into account the lesser amount of biomass burning in the mix of what constitutes total CH4.

Please before you go off on pedantic rants it would help if you actually read the papers you refer to.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5784
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: THE Natural Gas Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Plantagenet » Thu 01 Feb 2018, 18:13:23

(hint no measurements were made).....


Is that so? Do you want to bet on that? :lol: :roll:

We have compiled the most comprehensive δ13Csource database to date (see ref. 14 and Supplementary Information sections 3–5 for complete list of data, metadata and references) including 9,468 δ13CFF, δ13Cmic and δ13CBB original measurements from the peer-reviewed literature and other publicly available sources to define globally weighted average δ13CFF (time-dependent), δ13Cmic, and δ13CBB with well defined uncertainties.


If no measurements were made, then why does their data table contain 9,468 measurements?

Don't you understand that the authors based their paper on the data from the 9,468 measurements in their data tables? Do you get it now?

No, of course you don't get it.

-----------------------------------

Look-----my guess is you've got some kind of medical problem. You read things and you even quote them in your posts, but you either don't comprehend what you just read or you can't remember what you just read for more than a few seconds.

The result of this is that you continually post utter nonsense, like your claim here that there were no measurements, while you simultaneously quoted the exact part of the paper saying their work is based on 9,468 measurements.

Once again, you clearly didn't understand what you just read. You didn't comprehend at all even the passage you copied and quoted where it clearly discusses thousands of measurements. You say you read the paper, but apparently you can't remember the data tables where the data from these thousands of measurements are all listed.

My suggestion is that you should get a checkup. In my humble opinion your clear inability to comprehend or remember simple things you've just read should be a matter of concern to you.

Cheers! :)
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 20895
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: THE Natural Gas Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Thu 01 Feb 2018, 19:53:24

If no measurements were made, then why does their data table contain 9,468 measurements?


As it says in the paper they got that information from peer-reviewed literature and other publicly available sources. They made no measurement of isotopes themselves (which is what I pointed out but apparently your reading comprehension is nearly zero). Read what was said.

including 9,468 δ13CFF, δ13Cmic and δ13CBB original measurements from the peer-reviewed literature and other publicly available sources
Does that say they made those measurements? If you think so then you are an even bigger idiot than you appear to be.

The result of this is that you continually post utter nonsense, like your claim here that there were no measurements, while you simultaneously quoted the exact part of the paper saying their work is based on 9,468 measurements.


Your attempt to twist what I said is at best infantile. As I stated above Worden et al got all of their measurements on fossil fuel methane from Schwietke et al. Schwietke et al got all of their fossil fuel methane data from the literature. Neither paper actually measured any isotope data regarding fossil fuel components of methane. ONce again read what I wrote and read the frigging paper you moron.

Once again, you clearly didn't understand what you just read. You didn't comprehend at all even the passage you copied and quoted where it clearly discusses thousands of measurements. You say you read the paper, but apparently you can't remember the data tables where the data from these thousands of measurements are all listed.


Look dipshit here is what I said

They got all of their estimates of fossil fuel contributions from the paper I previously quoted (Schwietzke, S et al, 2016) that is quite obvious from their Table 1. They did not measure it themselves,


and

The NASA paper never measured CH4 for any reason other than determining biomass burning amounts through time. They did not directly measure fossil fuel originated CH4. They got all of that information from a previous paper and those authors got their information from a literature search and compilation (with no quality control, ie. assumed all values were equally relevant)


Now if you can show how what I actually said is incorrect rather than try to show how what I didn't say was incorrect then fine. Otherwise I suggest you quit digging yourself deeper into the "looking stupid" hole.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5784
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: THE Natural Gas Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Plantagenet » Thu 01 Feb 2018, 21:44:33

.... idiot ...moron.....stupid....


You're the one claiming a paper based on data tables containing page after page of data based on 9,458 measurements of atmospheric chemistry has "no measurements" in it. :lol: :roll: :-D

Cheers!

PS: When I say your reading comprehension is so poor that you don't understand what you are reading, I'm not saying you are stupid or so poorly educated that you are incapable of understanding the scientific literature. I know you have a M.Sc. degree and worked for many years as a professional in the oil biz. I'm just pointing out that your posts don't make any sense ---- probably because you can't remember what you just read. And then when this is pointed out to you you throw a childish fit. Wow.

Look at this most recent exchange...you claim a paper based on thousands of measurements of atmospheric chemistry has "no measurements" in it, and then act out like a little child having a tantrum and calling people names when your little mistake is pointed out to you.

Try to get a grip. You made a little mistake---its not the end of the world.

Image
Waaaah! Waaaah! There are no measurements in the paper!!! Ignore the 9458 measurements in the data tables! Waaah! I say there are NO MEASUREMENTS!!!!

Cheers! :lol: :) :-D :roll: :razz:
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 20895
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: THE Natural Gas Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Thu 01 Feb 2018, 21:59:31

You're the one claiming a paper based on data tables containing page after page of data based on 9,458 measurements of atmospheric chemistry has "no measurements" in it.


you just made that up. If you quoted me correctly (and I just showed the quotes above) you could not make this claim. Is there something frigging the matter with your brain?

Once again what I actually said:

They got all of their estimates of fossil fuel contributions from the paper I previously quoted (Schwietzke, S et al, 2016) that is quite obvious from their Table 1. They did not measure it themselves,


The NASA paper never measured CH4 for any reason other than determining biomass burning amounts through time. They did not directly measure fossil fuel originated CH4. They got all of that information from a previous paper and those authors got their information from a literature search and compilation (with no quality control, ie. assumed all values were equally relevant
)


Please show us all where I actually said the paper had no measurements in it, what I said was those measurements came from the literature. Now please show us all where my claims are wrong. If not why not just shut the hell up.

This sort of behavior is childish at best and reprehensible at it's worst. If you can't quote people properly then you should not be here. I doubt very much the moderators look favorably on your actions. If you think this sort of behavior will cause people to engage with you I suspect you have another think coming.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5784
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: THE Natural Gas Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby GoghGoner » Tue 06 Feb 2018, 06:36:57

CHK shares are heading down below $3 again. RRC really looks ugly, too. This after a year of higher ng prices but obviously not high enough. Producing unprofitable wells isn't a long term strategy? Who would have thought...

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-chesapeake-energy-corporation-apos-181100258.html

Chesapeake Energy had hoped to strengthen its financial situation so that it could return to growth mode last year. However, it ran into an unexpected headwind from Hurricane Harvey, which caused production to fall 15% in the third quarter. Additional headwinds appear set to hold it back again this year -- it anticipates that output to be flat to modestly higher, which was well below the 7% growth that analysts expected. That tepid outlook is another reason why the company no longer needs as many employees and shows how far it remains behind the competition, many of whom can deliver high-octane growth in the current environment.
GoghGoner
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1707
Joined: Thu 10 Apr 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Stilłwater subdivision

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests