US DOE says test shows potential for natgas hydrates

[seenmostofit]

Think of the worst tight-shale play and then multiply the costs by 100x and the payback by 1/100. It's underwater right?

Tanada notes that it is NOT underwater. I imagine the economics of that are quite a bit different.

[pstarr]

Think of the worst tight-shale play and then multiply the costs by 100x and the payback by 1/100. It's underwater right?

Tanada notes that it is NOT underwater. I imagine the economics of that are quite a bit different.

My question mark is rhetorical. Yes it is underwater. Or offworld, like unobtanium.

Originally thought to occur only in the outer regions of the Solar System where temperatures are low and water ice is common, significant deposits of methane clathrate have been found under sediments on the ocean floors of Earth.[3]

[kublikhan]

This crap is no more possible than Saturian Space Methane.

Apparently not only is it possible, but it has been done. From the quoted article...

As Tanada mentioned, the Russians have done work with this as well. And not just a research well, Norilsk is producing commercial methane hydrate gas today. Other countries are getting into the game as well.

Deep in the Arctic Circle, in the Messoyakha gas field of western Siberia, lies a pioneer in methane hydrate extraction. Back in 1967, Russian engineers began pumping natural gas from beneath the permafrost and piping it east across the tundra to the Norilsk metal smelter, the biggest industrial enterprise in the Arctic. In 1978 they decided to wind down the operation. According to their surveys, they had sapped nearly all the methane from the deposit. But despite their estimates, the gas just kept on coming. The gas field was re-opened and continues to power Norilsk today.

Where was this methane coming from? Russian geologists initially thought it was leaking from another deposit hidden beneath the first. But their experiments revealed the opposite -- the mystery methane was seeping into the well from the icy permafrost above. If unintentionally, what they had achieved was the first, and so far only, successful exploitation of methane hydrate.

Tundra Gas - Methane

China's largest coal producer, China Shenhua Group, has launched a project to research and develop combustible ice, a kind of natural gas hydrate, in the northwestern Qinghai province. Shenhua Group signed an agreement with the Qinghai provincial government on Monday evening to start the exploration of combustible ice in the province.

China announced the first discovery of the resource under the bed of the South China Sea in May 2007. After it was discovered in Muli prefecture in Qinghai province in 2009, the Ministry of Land Resources announced that China had found combustible ice in the land-based region as well.

Experts expect China to experience a period of peak energy demand from 2020 to 2025. With further exploration, the country's prospective volume of natural gas hydrate in frozen earth regions is estimated to reach an equivalent to 35 billion tonnes of oil.

China's largest coal producer to develop "combustible ice"

[kublikhan]

While I bet the methane deposits hold a ton of energy, wouldn't mining this stuff and burning it have wicked environmental problems?

Seems like if it is going to end up in the atmosphere anyway, might as well burn it and get some work out of it before it does?

Makes sense to me. Capture the methane before it leaks into the atmosphere, and at the same time you get another fossil fuel source.

The most recent DoE experiment was innovative. They lowered well pressure to make the hydrate flow and get the gas out.

In other words, this method removed a greenhouse gas from the atmosphere and produced an energy source. Even my environmentally-conscious colleague Jeff Siegel of the Power Portfolio would give two thumbs up for that.

Methane Hydrates - More Energy than All Other Fossil Fuels Combined

One of the main arguments in favor of exploiting onshore methane hydrates deposits concerns climate change. With many parts of the world, especially the permafrost regions, experiencing increases in temperature, methane is slowly being released from these deposits into the atmosphere. The permafrost is melting at an accelerating pace and thus the release of methane is increasing exponentially. As methane is a "greenhouse" gas that has a much greater impact on global warming than carbon dioxide, it is imperative to prevent as much of this methane as possible from escaping into the atmospere. Extracting the methane hydrates for use as fuel serves a doubly important purpose: it provides a much needed fuel at a time when global oil supplies appear to be dwindling and it saves the world from possibly disastrous sudden rises in temperature. By coincidence, Qinghai has been identified in scientific studies as the place with the fastest rising temperatures in the world.

Tundra Gas

[dissident]

Abstract PDF

1) The Messoyakha reservoir is a land based reservoir under a deep glacial permafrost layer (420-480 meters). This is not a typical configuration for seabed clathrates except in Arctic shelf regions such as the ESAS. So don't expect well type production.

2) According to the article abstract above it is not clear at all that the "fat tail" decline of this reservoir is due to clathrate production.

There are no seabed clathrate extraction operations that would enable an assessment of commercial viability. If people can find any news on such operations being planned then that would be really useful information.

[vtsnowedin]

As difficult as both deep water and sub permafrost hydrate methane deposits are to access they are still a hell of a lot closer then Saturn or some asteroid. For one thing you don't have to bring it through the reentry process without burning it up. I expect they will keep working on ways to bring usable amounts to the surface and eventually find a way that is viable at the then prevailing price.
Imagine if you will a robot bulldozer pushing square miles of deep water hydrate beds to one central riser pipe where the slush is brought up out of the deep pressure and the methane is separated from the water. Might be able to get it to the surface as already compressed LNG. Working through just 500 meters of permafrost should be a piece of cake in comparison and would obviously become profitable well before any deep water process.

[pstarr]

As difficult as both deep water and sub permafrost hydrate methane deposits are to access they are still a hell of a lot closer then Saturn or some asteroid. For one thing you don't have to bring it through the reentry process without burning it up. I expect they will keep working on ways to bring usable amounts to the surface and eventually find a way that is viable at the then prevailing price.
Imagine if you will a robot bulldozer pushing square miles of deep water hydrate beds to one central riser pipe where the slush is brought up out of the deep pressure and the methane is separated from the water. Might be able to get it to the surface as already compressed LNG. Working through just 500 meters of permafrost should be a piece of cake in comparison and would obviously become profitable well before any deep water process.

Piece of cake.

At this rate you might earn your stripes under VASSAL OF HIS LORD GINGRICH OF THE MOON COLONY

[vtsnowedin]

As difficult as both deep water and sub permafrost hydrate methane deposits are to access they are still a hell of a lot closer then Saturn or some asteroid. For one thing you don't have to bring it through the reentry process without burning it up. I expect they will keep working on ways to bring usable amounts to the surface and eventually find a way that is viable at the then prevailing price.
Imagine if you will a robot bulldozer pushing square miles of deep water hydrate beds to one central riser pipe where the slush is brought up out of the deep pressure and the methane is separated from the water. Might be able to get it to the surface as already compressed LNG. Working through just 500 meters of permafrost should be a piece of cake in comparison and would obviously become profitable well before any deep water process.

Piece of cake.

At this rate you might earn your stripes under VASSAL OF HIS LORD GINGRICH OF THE MOON COLONY

Did you miss the phrase "in comparison" after piece of cake? An important modifier that puts my level of enthusiasm well on the plane of reality.

[seenmostofit]

There are no seabed clathrate extraction operations that would enable an assessment of commercial viability. If people can find any news on such operations being planned then that would be really useful information.

How many decades, or even centuries, had oil and gas production been going on until underwater extraction of oil and gas came about. Seems to me that producing the stuff from onshore installations first makes perfect sense. And if the scientists are to be believed, there is quite a bit onshore to chase before worrying about the stuff offshore. Already have a pipeline in that neck of the woods to bring it down to power places like Anchorage.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3073/pdf/FS08-3073_508.pdf

[Timo]

Not being a chemist at all, this question stems from pure ignorance, but the answer to it will help me make a much more informed opinion on this emerging technology/source of fuel. I know that methane is extremely damaging in terms of GW, and i also know that the melting of the permafrost across all nothern latitudes will "free" vast quantities of methane gas that had been secured for millenia in the deep permafrost, thus accelerating the damages and the pace of GW. That's a viscious and unfortunate circle. But, what i don't know is, in the context of atmospheric consequences, the difference between "natural" methane gas being released into the atmosphere vs transforming that methane into a fuel and burning it into the atmosphere. Burning a gas changes its chemical properties, no? If that's the case, what are the consequences/advantages to capturing the methane hyrdates underground, extracting them, using them for fuel, and ultimately releasing them into the atmospehere as exhaust, versus just letting them enter the atmosphere naturally. What's the better approach? Or worse approach?

[radon]

If that's the case, what are the consequences/advantages to capturing the methane hyrdates underground, extracting them, using them for fuel, and ultimately releasing them into the atmospehere as exhaust, versus just letting them enter the atmosphere naturally. What's the better approach? Or worse approach?

I've been following this thread and my recollection is that the advantages are:

1. Using them for fuel (self-explanatory)
2. Methane is 20 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Meaning that the exhaust's greenhouse effect will be much weaker than that of the methane naturally released to the atmosphere.

[kublikhan]

When methane is combusted, the results are water and carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide released is about half as much as burning coal. The original methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than the resulting carbon dioxide. And burning natural gas instead of oil or coal releases far less carbon dioxide. So anyway you look at it, preventing this methane from getting into the atmosphere is a good thing from a global warming perspective.

Emissions from the Combustion of Natural Gas
Natural gas is the cleanest of all the fossil fuels, as evidenced in the Environmental Protection Agency’s data comparisons in the chart below, which is still current as of 2010. Composed primarily of methane, the main products of the combustion of natural gas are carbon dioxide and water vapor, the same compounds we exhale when we breathe. Coal and oil are composed of much more complex molecules, with a higher carbon ratio and higher nitrogen and sulfur contents. This means that when combusted, coal and oil release higher levels of harmful emissions, including a higher ratio of carbon emissions, nitrogen oxides (NOx), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Coal and fuel oil also release ash particles into the environment, substances that do not burn but instead are carried into the atmosphere and contribute to pollution. The combustion of natural gas, on the other hand, releases very small amounts of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, virtually no ash or particulate matter, and lower levels of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and other reactive hydrocarbons.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Because carbon dioxide makes up such a high proportion of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, reducing carbon dioxide emissions can play a pivotal role in combating the greenhouse effect and global warming. The combustion of natural gas emits almost 30 percent less carbon dioxide than oil, and just under 45 percent less carbon dioxide than coal.

Natural Gas and the Environment

[Tanada]

Turns out this is just the most recent in a series of tests the DOE has been conducting in the same area.

http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oi ... Field.html

The study of natural gas hydrate systems in the field provides invaluable information on these widely variable and complex systems. Results from the field can be utilized for experimental and numerical studies which offer the potential to evaluate aspects of these systems on a variety of scales and through different methodologies. The research and technology requirements necessary to further advance the understanding of natural gas hydrate systems are significant. NETL Office of Research & Development’s (ORD) Natural Gas Hydrate Team conducts integrated research from the laboratory to the field, and from the molecular to the reservoir scale modeling, leveraging NETL-ORD’s strengths in geology, geochemistry, microbiology, and numerical simulation to improve understanding of these complex systems. The NETL-ORD’s field studies efforts are often aligned with other ORD R&D activities, key projects supported by the National Methane Hydrate R&D Program both domestically and internationally, and collaboration with external partners.

The primary goals of the DOE/NETL NGHFS project are:

Conduct field-based studies that advance our ability to predict, detect, characterize, and understand where, how, and what controls natural gas hydrate occurrences in relation to both resource and climate issues.
Analyze geologic, geochemical, and microbiologic data for indications of past and current changes to the stability of natural gas hydrate in marine settings;
Develop links between the U.S. Program and international R&D efforts through direct participation in international field programs & workshops;
Evaluate the potential role natural gas hydrates play in the global carbon cycle through analysis of modern and paleo-natural gas occurrences;
Provide expertise to domestic and international collaborators, focusing on activities such as pre-expedition/field site selection and evaluation, field analyses, and synthesis of samples and data collected in the field;
Supply geologic expertise to the efforts of DOE/NETL to advance numerical simulation and field-relevant experimental studies;
Work with the DOE’s domestic research partners, particularly those partners involved in major field operations in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska, to ensure field test locations and plans are based on a full “gas hydrate systems” analyses.

http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oi ... mmer07.pdf

Phase 1B Activities
With hydrate stability established in Phase 1A, Phase 1B will determine whether there is hydrate of sufficient thickness and reservoir quality updip of the free gas accumulations to support production. This will require an integrated review of all seismic, well, and production history data, building on previous studies of the field data. Of particular interest is
characterization of the updip pinchout of reservoir sands.
Assuming the results of the hydrate stability modeling and reservoir limits review are encouraging, a detailed reservoir characterization will be undertaken to support simulation of hydrate production methodologies and planning for a potential dedicated hydrate test well. A goal of reservoir simulation modeling will be to quantify the impact of hydrate dissociation
recharge of the producing gas fields. This work will aid in understanding
effectiveness of secondary production via depressurization of the associated free gas interval.
Based on the static and dynamic reservoir modeling, the optimum location of a dedicated hydrate well for sampling and production testing will be proposed. The well will be designed to fit the geologic, reservoir, and operational specifics required in the Barrow gas fields but will also leverage and expand on the findings of the Anadarko and Milne Point wells.

IOW the DOE has been pursuing this particular development from at least 2007. The project would not still be in development without positive results forthcoming and from the most recent reports at the start of this thread that is the case. Originally they were studying depressurization through gas extraction from below the hydrate layer and have since moved on to include CO2 and Nitrogen injection for stimulation.

[seenmostofit]

Go hydrates! I wonder which is better in terms of CO2 emissions, doing all the related production work for shale gas, or whatever technique they are using to get these hydrates? The differences in production techniques could make quite a difference in that answer I imagine.

[Graeme]

Huge Potential Source of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Many environmentalists are protesting the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline because it would help facilitate the delivery of oil from Canada’s oil sands and, they argue, increase carbon dioxide emissions. They may have more reason to worry about what’s happening in Alaska. The state’s Department of Natural Resources is teaming up with the U.S. Department of Energy to speed up production of natural gas from a resource—methane hydrate deposits–that’s far larger than the oil sands in Canada, and could in theory lead to far greater greenhouse gas emissions.


The only way to keep methane hydrates in the ground is for other sources of energy to make more economic sense. Doing that would require research to make sources like nuclear power cheaper, and likely taxing carbon emissions to make sources like methane more expensive.

technologyreview

[ROCKMAN]

Graeme – I’m always a bit surprised to hear anyone protest the development of any oil/NG resource based solely on the resultant GHG from that source. I suppose it depends on how one views the future. You probably already understand how I see it: as oil/NG become less available/more expensive all the economies will expand the use of coal. IMHO growth and maintaining BAU as best as possible will trump AGW concerns.

IMHO expanding oil/NG resources just delays the inevitable. But does allow a bit more time to adjust.

[Graeme]

Coal is becoming less available too. I can see that there is mounting pressure internationally to keep the remaining fossil fuels in the ground mainly for environmental reasons. We have to do this within a decade or two otherwise living on Earth later this century will be intolerable. It's bad enough now so G8 leaders have made a committment to push for a global agreement under the UNFCCC process. Actually, I've just seen that the case for action is becoming even more urgent.