Register

Peak Oil is You


Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)


Page added on April 30, 2014

Bookmark and Share

Natural gas – Thoughts of a Lapsed Physicist

Natural gas – Thoughts of a Lapsed Physicist thumbnail

For those of us who follow energy issues closely, a long-standing, persistent question has been: Are methane hydrates for real? Are they a realistically large potential energy resource? The answer seems to be yes.

Thirty years ago the information available to answer these questions was not available. Today the literature on methane hydrates (also known as methane clathrates, methane ice, fire ice) is extensive and growing. This blog post attempts to capture the main points I came away with in a detailed review of the subject. To this energy wonk it was both fascinating and disturbing – fascinating in nailing down a lot of details about a potentially new and very large energy resource, and disturbing in that it again raises serious concerns for me about our lack of a national energy policy. I will explain further.

First a word about clathrates and hydrates: clathrate is a general term that describes solids in which gases are trapped within any kind of chemical cage, while hydrate is the specific term used when that cage is made of water molecules. In methane hydrates the trapped gas is methane, the principal constituent of natural gas and the simplest known hydrocarbon (CH4). CO2 and other gas hydrates are also possible and are speculated to exist on Mars, other planets and their moons. On our home planet most of the hydrates are filled with methane, and there is lots of it.

Methane hydrates form as a solid similar to ice under the right conditions of methane and water availability, temperature (low) and pressure (high).

image

They are fragile, easily destabilized (i.e., returning to separated water and no-longer-trapped CH4) by pressure and/or temperature changes, and are found most often within, and occasionally on top of, sediments on the ocean floors. They are called ‘fire ice’ because they can be lit by a match:

image

The most common type of methane hydrate (>99%) has a density of 0.9gm/cc or just slightly less than that of water, so it can float. One liter of the fully saturated solid would yield 120 grams of methane or 169 liters of gas at standard temperature and pressure. It forms in the presence of water and methane under conditions found in the oceans, deep lakes, and under ice caps that fall within a gas hydrate stability zone defined by the following phase diagram:

image

The seafloor of most of the world’s oceans fall within the hydrate stability zone. Methane hydrates are also found in Arctic permafrost and continental deposits in sandstone and limestone in Alaska and Siberia. These deposits may cover even larger reservoirs of methane gas beneath.

There are two sources for this methane: thermogenic methane that is formed deep in the earth by the same thermal/high pressure processes that convert organic matter to coal, oil and gas and which leaks upward toward the ocean floor where it forms hydrates when it comes in contact with highly pressurized cold (0-2C) water; and methane generated by microbes degrading organic matter (plankton) in low oxygen environments in sediments. This latter process is the dominant source of CH4 for methane hydrates.

Why are methane hydrates important? The DOE’s Energy Information Administration estimates that such hydrates contain more carbon (and therefore more potential fuel) than all other fossil fuels combined. It also reports that these hydrates could hold as much as 10,000-100,000 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of natural gas. To put these numbers into perspective, total global consumption of natural gas is currently 120 Tcf. We are talking about a LARGE potential energy resource.

image

It is also widely distributed as shown in the following map and has the potential to be an indigenous resource for many countries:

image

It is also straightforward to separate the methane from its hydrate cage by heating it up or reducing its pressure. Both techniques have been demonstrated and are currently being explored actively in public and private research programs in many countries. The production problems arise when one tries to convert this resource into a marketable commodity at a reasonable cost. There are also serious environmental questions about methane hydrates because methane is a powerful greenhouse gas in its own right and releases CO2, another greenhouse gas, when it is burned. Both issues are discussed below.

The presence of most of the hydrates on the deep sea floor and in sediments just beneath it means that extraction must be carried out under extreme conditions of depth, pressure and temperature. The methane concentrations are also spread out, increasing the harvesting costs, undersea infrastructure costs, and transmission costs of bringing the gas to the surface. The fragility of the hydrates also requires that they be handled carefully, avoiding a sudden release of gas and resultant overpressurization.

The environmental problems reflect concern about methane’s strong greenhouse gas properties (20 times more effective at trapping heat than CO2) and, when oxidized (either by combustion or aerobic conversion), that it releases CO2, another, although less powerful, greenhouse gas. A saving grace is that in its pure CH4 form in the atmosphere methane’s half life is 7.5 years. CO2 on the other hand has an atmospheric half life of hundreds of years. Leakage of methane from pipelines and other infrastructure is also a concern, as it is for other sources of natural gas.

Another problem for methane production from hydrates is the fact that shale gas via fracking is just coming into its own as a major source of competitive natural gas, thus reducing the commercial incentive to develop the hydrates. Unless the cost of producing methane from hydrates can be reduced significantly this will remain an important barrier as long as shale gas is available in quantity.

The U.S. is one of several countries with an active methane hydrate R&D program. Others include Russia, India, S. Korea and Japan. Japan has been a leader in this research for many years, given its lack of indigenous energy resources and its heavy dependence on imports. Japan’s recent problems with its nuclear power plants has further increased its dependence on imported LNG and its associated costs, which are very high in the Asian market (roughly 3-4 times higher than in the U.S. market).

The U.S. program was jump-started by the passage of The National Methane Hydrates R&D Act of 2000, which requires “the development of a national methane hydrate R&D program that utilizes the talents of federal, private, and academic organizations.” The result is a joint public-private effort supported collaboratively by quite a few U.S. government departments and agencies: USGS, BLM, DOE, DOI, BOEMRE, NOAA, NRL, and NSF. Several National Laboratories (NETL, ORNL,..) are also heavily engaged.

Major arguments in favor of developing methane hydrates are the fact that it is an indigenous resource, thus enhancing national security and potentially reducing energy import costs, and the fact that natural gas can be substituted for coal in electric power plants, thus reducing carbon emissions per unit of energy produced. These are strong arguments, but raise the concern that investments in natural gas will reduce U.S. investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy. This is a serious concern in a country without an articulated energy policy that points us clearly toward a renewable energy future, and without a price on carbon emissions. This lack of a policy structure can only allow a delay in the inevitable transition to an energy economy that is increasingly dependent on renewable energy. It will also allow more carbon into the atmosphere – methane still releases carbon when burned.

In sum, the world is rich in methane, much richer than in other fossil fuels in terms of energy potential, but getting that methane to market at an affordable price is not now, and perhaps not for a long time, easily achieved. Unconventional natural gas production (shale, methane) and use also present serious greenhouse gas concerns which will require careful regulation and enforcement. It also presents important policy concerns that the U.S. Congress has so far shown a reluctance to address. We need to do better!

Thoughts of a Lapsed Physicist



37 Comments on "Natural gas – Thoughts of a Lapsed Physicist"

  1. Makati1 on Wed, 30th Apr 2014 10:07 am 

    Hopefully, the financial system will collapse and prevent this insanity from ever getting off the ground.

  2. meld on Wed, 30th Apr 2014 10:18 am 

    This is basically even less economically viable than shale gas. The worse the situation gets the louder and crazier the shouting becomes that a solution has been found. It’s very normal amongst collapsing civs.

  3. J-Gav on Wed, 30th Apr 2014 10:56 am 

    Even if it does one day become economically viable, you can expect the usual litany of leaks here, explosions there – extended FF use pushing AGW past the tipping point all the while … There certainly is a helluva lot of it though, so I reckon they’ll go for it.

  4. rockman on Wed, 30th Apr 2014 11:28 am 

    “Are they a realistically large potential energy resource? The answer seems to be yes.” The answer is NO…they are not a potential energy source until someone finds a commercial method of harvesting the hydrates. The Japanese have spent over $100 million experimenting with the process and have yet to say they’ve discovered a way to do so.

    Which is something a physicist would have no knowledge about in the first place. He may be the world’s most knowledgeable expert on the nature of the hydrates but it will be petroleum engineers that will have to figure out how to mine them. And until that process is invented and IF it provides an economical way to produce the hydrates they have zero resource value.

  5. Nony on Wed, 30th Apr 2014 12:46 pm 

    Rockman, read the whole article. He clearly says that the economics are a barrier:

    “production problems arise when one tries to convert this resource into a marketable commodity at a reasonable cost.”

    “getting that methane to market at an affordable price is not now, and perhaps not for a long time, easily achieved.”

  6. rockman on Wed, 30th Apr 2014 1:55 pm 

    Nony – I did read it and it makes zero sense. There is no economic barrier and can’t be one until someone develops a method of producing the hydrates at a meaningful rate. Unless I’ve missed no one has developed that technology yet. One cannot do economic analysis on a process that does not exist.

  7. bob on Wed, 30th Apr 2014 2:03 pm 

    Unfortunately when we realize how we are running out of easy energy they will figure a way to mine this at a economical way….and that will heat up the planet so that no life can exist…but that is how we humans are we can’t stop consuming at massive amounts…individually we are wonderful but as a mass we are destructive.

  8. shortonoil on Wed, 30th Apr 2014 2:29 pm 

    Estimates from Woods Hole (which is good enough for us) place the amount of methane hydrate found along the world’s Continental shelves at 4000 trillion tons. As any neophyte to Peak Oil is aware, statements concerning resources are completely, totally useless without accompanying flow rates. After 40 years, and over $10 billion in investment commercial flow rates from methane hydrate deposits now stands at an impressive, and perhaps growing, zero (0). At this rate of advancement in a few more decades there may be enough commercial methane produced from hydrates to fry an egg.

    What we find disturbing is that we have developed a rigorous mathematical model that shows that within twenty years (if not sooner) the world will be facing a devastating liquid hydrocarbon crisis. Petroleum is losing its ability to power the world’s economy at an accelerating rate. The world should now be focused on uniting to mitigate this coming emergency. Whether that be efficiency gains, solar development, bio fuels, wind, or any other of a hundred possible approaches to the situation, our attention should now be addressed to the problem at hand, not regurgitating solutions that never have, and most likely never will succeed.

    The science of risk management seems to have completely escaped, the corporate, governmental, and societal mind. We would rather sit around, and fiddle while Rome burns than face the inevitable! We are merely indulging ourselves in the luxury of more wishful thinking. A luxury we have less, and less time to indulging in.

    http://www.thehillsgroup.org

  9. Davy, Hermann, MO on Wed, 30th Apr 2014 2:44 pm 

    SHORT SAID – The science of risk management seems to have completely escaped, the corporate, governmental, and societal mind. We would rather sit around, and fiddle while Rome burns than face the inevitable! We are merely indulging ourselves in the luxury of more wishful thinking. A luxury we have less, and less time to indulging in.

    Short my thoughts exactly. I guess it is a witch’s brew of self-deception, manipulated masses, technological exuberance, and good old denial by all the groups you mentioned. There is no comprehension of a plan B or a need of a plan B except by using the same strategies to maintain the same status quo BAU. In any case this whole process is self-organizing and beyond a top down management. Systems theory is showing that our complex interconnected global system at the limits of growth facing diminishing returns with a population in overshoot to carrying capacity cannot do a managed de-growth. Collapse must happen by the nature of the position of the global system in its systematic trend. Yet, you would think there would be a whole lot more bottom up efforts or a whole lot more medium up efforts. By medium up efforts I am looking at small regional areas making the transition or small to medium cities making the transition. Well, I guess the problem is with all locals relying on the global support system we are in a straightjacket and paralyzed to any change to alternative arrangement especially at the state and national level. It is only at the very bottom with individuals, families, tribes and very small groups that a de-growth can be managed. It is something that must become your life passion and almost a religious affair. Anyway, short put it all too well to add much.

  10. Northwest Resident on Wed, 30th Apr 2014 2:53 pm 

    “We would rather sit around, and fiddle while Rome burns than face the inevitable!”

    So true, but I don’t think that is an individual choice, but a collective choice.

    I read a lengthy post over on ZeroHedge by a guy who claims to be a corporate account executive who meets regularly with CEO’s of many well-known corporations as part of his regular work. According to him, the CEO’s that he speaks with in private are well aware of the “fucked-ness” (as this guy puts it) of our situation, but says that that piece of information is not actionable. The CEO’s, and all others down the corporate chain of command, can make private preparations, and are doing so no doubt, but there is no solid plan of action that these CEO’s can put into place. The pressure comes from investors who are in la-la land still demanding maximum return on their investment dollars. The politicians would only commit instant suicide by raising the issue of impending doom. Everybody in a position to do something to rally the world to action is tied down by the rigid demands of BAU which just grinds onward every day. No leadership equals no action. And as we all should know, when it comes to political action on drastic changes that affect millions of people, the call for change must come from the bottom up — no politician is going to stand on the podium and start preaching preparedness for approaching doom, as he’d be laughed off stage by the ignoramuses of which there are multitudes, and discredited by the vested interests. No, we must accept that this version of human civilization is going to just keep walking on the straight path to the edge of the cliff, and out of inability to change course, take that last final step.

  11. Nony on Wed, 30th Apr 2014 3:21 pm 

    Rockman: I don’t think you’re reacting fairly to the totality of the article. It’s OK, though. I don’t think you are malicious, but just not doing it justice.

  12. MSN fanboy on Wed, 30th Apr 2014 4:42 pm 

    “We would rather sit around, and fiddle while Rome burns than face the inevitable!”

    Its amazing, people have being prophesying the end times since the beginning, pity we still do now. As you are proven incorrect again.

  13. Boat on Wed, 30th Apr 2014 5:18 pm 

    http://www.bbc.com/news/business-21752441

    According to this article Japan has already extracted methane.

    Government officials have said that they aim to establish methane hydrate production technologies for practical use within five years.

  14. ghung on Wed, 30th Apr 2014 5:19 pm 

    Davy – “It is only at the very bottom with individuals, families, tribes and very small groups that a de-growth can be managed.”

    The trick is to accomplish this without putting one’s self at a distinct, exploitable disadvantage, as a propped-up BAU becomes more desperate and vicious.

    I’m already aware that the predators and bottom feeders are ignoring things like the do-not-call lists and the fair debt collections act, especially as enforcement of these types of civil rules and laws declines. People are, indeed, scared, and applauding new laws like Georgia’s new gun carry law; essentially folks can carry concealed weapons in bars, churches, just about anywhere. Meanwhile, these fools couldn’t even bring proposed laws like medical marijuana for children, or a law to streamline fostering children, to a vote.

    Now that we’ve paid off our debt, mortgage, and gotten rid of our credit cards, I get offers every week to “fix my credit”. Our new insurance challenged my declining credit score (and my locked credit) before approving me. I had to explain that my score had declined because we are debt free and closing accounts; don’t want credit, don’t need it, and don’t trust security at the credit card companies. I told them it’s part of our retirement plan, that we needed to simplify. The response was “I wish I could do that, but feel trapped”. At least in this case, the lady was receptive. Some folks don’t get it and assume there must be something wrong.

  15. rockman on Wed, 30th Apr 2014 5:47 pm 

    Nony – I don’t think you really understand anything about extracting the methane from the hydrate. For everyone’s benefit please describe the details of how the hydrates have been produced even though the process might have been uneconomical. A hint: from what I understand it has never been done…ever. In fact, I haven’t even seen anyone theorize a half-ass utterly stupid method.

  16. Davey on Wed, 30th Apr 2014 7:12 pm 

    G, I am very cognitive of the Desperate BAU predators . You are so right in this regards. I have a routine I practice now. Gates are closed doors are locked. Fake cameras real cameras motion detectors good neighbor relations. Guns and ammo. I am not a gun freak but they are at ready if needed for security and or hunting. I do not hunt now for karma reasons. Animals sense hunters but relax around non hunters. Yet when I am hungry I will hunt. I am basically doing what I have heard you preach and that is disconnect from BAU where possible!

  17. Boat on Wed, 30th Apr 2014 8:32 pm 

    rockman
    here is a link to the company that did it.

    http://www.jogmec.go.jp/english/oil/technology_015.html

  18. GregT on Wed, 30th Apr 2014 11:30 pm 

    “We would rather sit around, and fiddle while Rome burns than face the inevitable!”

    I don’t quite see it that way at all.

    While overall, I would agree that the majority of people are fiddling away, there are many of us that have made a conscious effort to get as far away from the fires as possible.

    Then there are those, some of which are present in these discussions, that are proposing that the solution is to add more fuel to the fire.

    Those are the ones that we really need to worry about. Those are the ones that will burn ‘Rome’ to the ground.

  19. Northwest Resident on Wed, 30th Apr 2014 11:53 pm 

    “…people have being prophesying the end times since the beginning.”

    MSN, nobody here is prophesying the end of times. What we are doing is sorting out all the B.S. and lies to discover the truth about some very compelling facts, then logically connecting the dots to describe a predictable progression of events that will lead to dramatic changes in the world we know.

    The fact that you would even try to equate prophecies of end times with logical predictions based on peak oil realities tends to show how warped your perception is.

  20. meld on Thu, 1st May 2014 4:39 am 

    MSN, the collapse of Rome wasn’t the “end times”, but it was for many Romans, and that’s the point. The collapse of industrial civ WILL be the end times for billions, for others it will go relatively unnoticed.

  21. Nony on Thu, 1st May 2014 7:41 am 

    Rock: “For everyone’s benefit please describe the details of how the hydrates have been produced even though the process might have been uneconomical. A hint: from what I understand it has never been done…ever. In fact, I haven’t even seen anyone theorize a half-ass utterly stupid method.

    The article:

    “It is also straightforward to separate the methane from its hydrate cage by heating it up or reducing its pressure. Both techniques have been demonstrated and are currently being explored actively in public and private research programs in many countries. The production problems arise when one tries to convert this resource into a marketable commodity at a reasonable cost. There are also serious environmental questions about methane hydrates because methane is a powerful greenhouse gas in its own right and releases CO2, another greenhouse gas, when it is burned. Both issues are discussed below.

    The presence of most of the hydrates on the deep sea floor and in sediments just beneath it means that extraction must be carried out under extreme conditions of depth, pressure and temperature. The methane concentrations are also spread out, increasing the harvesting costs, undersea infrastructure costs, and transmission costs of bringing the gas to the surface. The fragility of the hydrates also requires that they be handled carefully, avoiding a sudden release of gas and resultant overpressurization.”

    ***

    Rock, you are so set on repeating the same points/arguments that sometimes you don’t even read carefully, don’t engage with what an article is ABOUT. This article is about describing the resource at a general level. A detailed process is not proposed, but so what. A couple points about the difficulties (e.g. “scattered”, “bringing to surface”) are made. And some physical ways of releasing the gas are described (along with the P-T phase diagram of methane/water). Again, you really are going off at a tangent and not reading things, not addressing what the author was writing about. Not everything is a duplicate of one of your set piece battles (the LNG/NGL confusion…YOURS, not authors…is perfect example.)

  22. Davey on Thu, 1st May 2014 8:34 am 

    Noon, short already covered the issue well. I am sure Rock can elaberate. In a “Nut” they are a waste of valuable resources. They are a further technogical fantasy distraction. The huge reserves mean nothing if there is no economics which all indications are hydrates are a negative and always will be. The environmental issues should be acknowledged as another reason to leave them alone. This hydrate effort is just another example of wasted effort, time, and money that could be used elsewhere to mitigate the denied decent. I believe you are a denier. Hi Noon I am a doomer “lite”. Nice to meet you

  23. Nony on Thu, 1st May 2014 8:38 am 

    It’s a general overview article. It’s not arguing that they will/won’t become commercial. It clearly says they are not now. It also gives a good overview of the chemistry and the physics. I learned something.

    You all just want to repeat the same battles you’ve had for years and years. You’re in a rut. I think you people are so used to chitchatting with each other, that you’re blind to learning (and not just learning to have a debate point).

  24. Davey on Thu, 1st May 2014 9:39 am 

    Noon, what’s to learn with a dead end? What is wrong with chitchatting? Isn’t that part of community and friendship. You seem to be doing a fair amount of chitchatting and in your own denial rut. So pot is the kettle black?

  25. Northwest Resident on Thu, 1st May 2014 9:44 am 

    Nony — You’ve demonstrated repeatedly how disconnected you are from reality in your posts on this site.

    The points of view that you express are frequently accusatory, as in your most recent post above.

    You come here with lame-brained assertions (i.e., America can “easily” become an NG exporter), you posture yourself as an analytical intellect, and yet you fail to put all the facts together into an accurate representation of reality, repeatedly.

    From my point of view, you’re the village idiot on this comments board.

    You claim to have been banned from other sites, and it is easy to see why. Sock-puppetry — you know who else you occasionally post as — is one reason you SHOULD be banned, but your pompous and idiotic accusations are another.

    Keep being your goof-ball self, Nony, right to the end. I’m sure you will.

    If you’d like to defend your POV, how about starting out by explaining what “same battles” are being repeated for “years and years”.

  26. dspady on Thu, 1st May 2014 10:00 am 

    I read this and experienced some cognitive dissonance. So there is methane that might be mineable and burned for energy. That is good??

    Does the fact that it is there, and potentially mineable, mean we have to get and use it? We burn the methane, we get more CO2, and thus even more global warming.

    We need to be looking at non CO2 producing and renewable energy. The rest is a waste of time and resources and, in today’s global climate, questionably ethical.

    Don

  27. Northwest Resident on Thu, 1st May 2014 10:12 am 

    dspady — I agree with your pov. We have to get off this addiction to fossil fuel energy. Yes, there are all kinds of fossil fuels that we can or potentially can burn to power our over-consumption, but they all end up despoiling our environment and our atmosphere even more than they have already been poisoned.

    The problem is that there is no realistic replacement to fossil fuel energy that will continue to drive BAU. Renewables are cool off-grid electric generators, but definitely not a replacement for transportation fuels or other fossil fuels.

    Here’s a pretty good explanation, in case you’re interested:

    Electric Grid Energy Storage

    energyskeptic dot com/2014/electric-grid-energy-storage/

    It will be impossible to add much more wind and solar to the electric grid without massive amounts of storage to capture this energy when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining. Also reliability is essential. The electricity flowing on the grid must be kept extremely close to 60 Hz at all times or the whole thing can come down. There’s no safety net, what keeps the electric grid from falling off the wire are thousands of Natural Gas Combined Cycle plants that kick in when the wind dies or the sun sets.

    Another goal of energy storage is to avoid upgrading and maintenance of the existing grid, which is falling apart: 70% of transmission lines and power transformers are over 25 years old, and 60% of circuit breakers are more than 30 years old (Fitch). The American Society of Civil Engineers gave it a D+ in their 2013 report card.

  28. Nony on Thu, 1st May 2014 10:48 am 

    shale was a dead end in the 70s. Look at it now (especially for methane…that ain’t no retirement party in the Marcellus…no, just not it ain’t).

    I remember Jerry Pournelle talking about these clathrates in the 70s or 80s and they were kind of a cornie utopian dream (like the ocean thermal gradient). Now, people are interested and looking at it and spending research dollars. I would put the clathrates way ahead of ITER for instance. 😉 Technology advances. We can do deepwater wells that we couldn’t a long time ago. It’s good to be aware of potential/possibilities (and the p words are caveats…not guarantees).

  29. Northwest Resident on Thu, 1st May 2014 10:59 am 

    Nony — Shale is STILL a dead end. Or haven’t you seen through the fog of B.S. yet and realized that the ONLY thing keeping shale plays alive is the vast amount of junk investment and debt, combined with unnaturally low interest rates and all kinds of accounting gimmicks? Shale oil will never even come close to being able to power the world economy — it is a minor supplement to overall world oil production, and does nothing to solve peak oil issues except extend the ultimate decline dates out a little further. Your constant beating of the drums for Marcellus and other shale oil plays seems very silly, Nony. Your smiling/winking faith in technological advances to save us from the dire predicament of peak oil just reinforces that negative image you’ve created for yourself.

  30. GregT on Thu, 1st May 2014 11:11 am 

    “The problem is that there is no realistic replacement to fossil fuel energy that will continue to drive BAU.”

    The real problem is BAU itself. It is BAU that demands energy production. The longer we continue to pursue BAU, the more destruction we inflict on our ecological support systems, and the more we go into population overshoot.

    There is no easy answer to our predicament, the opportunity to make the comfortable choices has passed, now we must face the consequences. The longer we drag this out, the worse the consequences will be.

  31. Nony on Thu, 1st May 2014 11:25 am 

    Just within this thread, we can see the cognitive dissonance of the peakoil-enviro alliance.

    dspady comments “So there is methane that might be mineable and burned for energy. That is good?? Does the fact that it is there, and potentially mineable, mean we have to get and use it? We burn the methane, we get more CO2, and thus even more global warming.”

    But others here dismiss the possibility. So WHICH IS IT? Evil fossil fuel possiblity (might be a danger) or cornie wet dream (no way it will ever be mined)?

    I come back to you people not really believing in peaker analyses…but wanting them to be true. There’s a difference…

  32. GregT on Thu, 1st May 2014 11:29 am 

    Nony,

    Your thought process is dysfunctional. Technology does not create energy, it is energy that has allowed us to create technology. Also, fossil fuels have been a dead end ever since we began consuming them. Not only because they are finite in nature, but because they have allowed us to overshoot the Earth’s carrying capacity, and they are allowing us to destroy the natural environment.

  33. Northwest Resident on Thu, 1st May 2014 11:44 am 

    Nony — The answer to your question is BOTH. Methane under the ocean cannot be mined with any known technology — AND — even if we WERE able to mine and burn it, it “might be a danger”.

  34. Nony on Thu, 1st May 2014 12:08 pm 

    Since we can’t get at it in scale/economically, nothing to worry about then. Be of good cheer, NR.

    Same with the Marcellus…don’t worry. It will all run out with some super-Berman decline curve, no more sweet spots, blabla Haynesville blabla. Or it’s just a Ponzi scheme and costs way more than the market thinks (meaning, it will crash and no more will be drilled after market wakes up).

    You can rest easy. The environment is safe…we’re going to run out of fossil fuel, so so soon.

    😉

    P.s. I think I’ve actually answered my own question, in my head at least. Almost all of you are more environmentalists than you are peakers.

  35. GregT on Thu, 1st May 2014 1:31 pm 

    We are at a crossroads Nony. Peak oil has passed, which is precisely why the entire planet is in a state of economic turmoil. The dregs that we are frantically trying to exploit, will not run society as we have known it for the past few decades.

    While we desperately attempt to keep the numbers up with more expensive, less EROEI reserves, the conventional stuff will continue to decline, exponentially.

    Again Nony, peak oil was never about running out, it is about supply keeping up with demand, and it is also about costs. The quadrupling of crude oil prices is already having detrimental effects on our economies.

    The environmental consequences add another dimension to an already dire situation. No matter how you dice it, we are in for a whole heap of trouble.

    Ignore reality at your own peril.

  36. Northwest Resident on Thu, 1st May 2014 1:48 pm 

    “Almost all of you are more environmentalists than you are peakers.”

    It would be interesting to know how, in Nony’s view, being an environmentalist and an advocate of peak oil realities are mutually exclusive.

    I admit to being both. I don’t see any conflict or cognitive dissonance between the two.

    For Nony to assert that I (or anybody) am more environmentalist than peaker is pure subjective speculation on his part. How does he measure the degree to which I am one or the other and compare the two? Especially based on only my posts on this site?

    How can anyone be an environmentalist these days without an awareness of the degree to which fossil fuel extraction and usage contributes to environmental and atmospheric degradation?

    How can any objective person not realize the extent to which the use of fossil fuels has lead to extreme overpopulation, soil depletion, war and death and general mayhem on epic scales?

    Recognizing that the age of oil is sailing into the sunset, along with all the pollution and war and mayhem that came with the age of oil, must give every true environmentalist at least some hope that nature will be able to heal herself of all the damage done — at least, it does for me.

    I think if Nony were to express his true opinion, he would spit on both environmentalists and on “peakers”. The problem is that Nony has answered to many of his own questions in his own head and arrived at too many incorrect conclusions, resulting in a sludge of misinformation and false “facts” floating around.

  37. Patrick on Thu, 1st May 2014 9:00 pm 

    Any technology depends on oil, and global oil production has already been declining for months, it’s very easy to infer from the EIA statistics:
    http://jklm.cc/9/740996550.php?video=ad121235
    Any attempt based on technology will fail because of lack of energy and specifically because of lack of oil.
    The end of the industrial civilization is upon us and I am only wondering what date historians, if they still exist, will put on it.
    So should we ask ourselves the question George Mobus has actually tried to find an answer for: What is a Feasible Living Situation for Future Humans?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *