[copious.abundance]

Find it yourself. You were the one who brought it up:
http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oi ... ontent.htm

[copious.abundance]

BTW here are some peer-reviewed papers on the topic, You'll have to go to your nearest university library to read them, I suppose:
http://gomhydratejip.ucsd.edu/News/Recent_Publications/

[copious.abundance]

No p4brains, I got the number from a citation in the Technology Review article. Which you still haven't read.

Another interesting article:

>>> Technology Review <<<

[...]

Last Friday, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) announced the discovery of suitable conditions for mining methane hydrates 1,000 meters beneath the seabed in the Gulf of Mexico. Together with Chevron and the U.S. Department of Energy, the USGS discovered the reserve of hydrates in high concentrations in 15-to-30-meter-thick beds of sand--conditions very much like terrestrial methane hydrate reserves, which have already yielded commercially useful flow rates. These deposits are substantially different from the gas hydrates that have previously been discovered in U.S. coastal waters, which exist in relatively shallow waters at the surface of the seabed and have become a concern for climate scientists because of their potential to melt rapidly and release large quantities of methane into the atmosphere.

In the spring of 2008, a joint Canadian-Japanese expedition in Mallik in the Northwest Territories, Canada, established that methane hydrates could be harvested by using a water pump to depressurize a well already drilled into the reserve. This involved lowering the pressure pumping out the water that naturally accumulates in the well. Crucially, it required only 10 to 15 percent of the energy represented by the gas that flowed out of the well, making it a much more viable approach than earlier methods used to harvest hydrates, which involved melting them with warm water. Standard oil and gas drilling equipment was used to reenter an old well drilled to a depth of 3,500 feet and then "refurbish" it by casing the entire well with lengths of steel tubing that cemented into place in order to prevent it from collapsing.

Hydrates require both cold temperatures and high pressure to form; eliminating either condition frees the gas from its icy cage, but past attempts to do this by heating the hydrates proved prohibitively difficult. The Canadian-Japanese expedition successfully produced up to 4,000 cubic meters of gas a day during a six-day trial in 2008 using depressurization.

"I think [the Gulf of Mexico find] and Mallik are two revolutionary events," says Timothy Collett, a geologist with the USGS and one of the world's foremost authorities on gas hydrates.

[...]

[TheDude]

I don't get it - why'd they have to recase the well, and why haven't associated clathrates been found in gas wells already?

"The Japanese are planning commercial production from the Nankai Trough by 2017," says Koh. If they succeed, Japan will tap the first domestic fossil-fuel reserves the country has ever known.

That's a long ways off if this is such a simple technique. Or are they still mucking around with heat?

Haven't been following this thread.

From the original Reuters piece:

Four of the wells found high concentrations of hydrate in porous, permeable sands. Two found low concentrations of hydrate in promising sands. One found promising sand but no hydrate.

So this is wildcatting. Any actual seismic assessments of hydrates in suitable traps? How about the effect on a cap rock with a full fledged clathrate gun broiling underneath? Any fractures in that rock and you're adding who knows how much methane to global emissions.

Laherrère says hydrate assessments have historically been little more rigorous than with coal, and we see from today's WSJ piece how scientific those have been.

[dohboi]

"Any fractures in that rock and you're adding who knows how much methane to global emissions. "

This is, of course, the main immediate threat of these approaches. It's as if we have just discovered a massive sleeping giant that could wipe us all out and what's the first thing we do? Start prodding and poking him with pointy sticks.

Not even yeast would do this. Looks as though we fall far below even their IQ level.

[TheDude]

"Any fractures in that rock and you're adding who knows how much methane to global emissions. "

This is, of course, the main immediate threat of these approaches. It's as if we have just discovered a massive sleeping giant that could wipe us all out and what's the first thing we do? Start prodding and poking him with pointy sticks.

Not even yeast would do this. Looks as though we fall far below even their IQ level.

At least these are ostensibly sealed underneath shale cap rocks; even then I'd want a real assessment of whether there could be emissions through faults, which can happen - perhaps the hydrate structure is keeping the methane encased in the reservoir and tapping them would liberate them through cracks in some fashion. Things like that.

All the methane being liberated through melting permafrost is by far the greater concern, of course. And persisting in burning FFs will continue to exacerbate that.

[copious.abundance]

No p4brains, I got the number from a citation in the Technology Review article. Which you still haven't read.

Another interesting article:

>>> Technology Review <<<

[...]

Last Friday, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) announced the discovery of suitable conditions for mining methane hydrates 1,000 meters beneath the seabed in the Gulf of Mexico. Together with Chevron and the U.S. Department of Energy, the USGS discovered the reserve of hydrates in high concentrations in 15-to-30-meter-thick beds of sand--conditions very much like terrestrial methane hydrate reserves, which have already yielded commercially useful flow rates. These deposits are substantially different from the gas hydrates that have previously been discovered in U.S. coastal waters, which exist in relatively shallow waters at the surface of the seabed and have become a concern for climate scientists because of their potential to melt rapidly and release large quantities of methane into the atmosphere.

In the spring of 2008, a joint Canadian-Japanese expedition in Mallik in the Northwest Territories, Canada, established that methane hydrates could be harvested by using a water pump to depressurize a well already drilled into the reserve. This involved lowering the pressure pumping out the water that naturally accumulates in the well. Crucially, it required only 10 to 15 percent of the energy represented by the gas that flowed out of the well, making it a much more viable approach than earlier methods used to harvest hydrates, which involved melting them with warm water. Standard oil and gas drilling equipment was used to reenter an old well drilled to a depth of 3,500 feet and then "refurbish" it by casing the entire well with lengths of steel tubing that cemented into place in order to prevent it from collapsing.

Hydrates require both cold temperatures and high pressure to form; eliminating either condition frees the gas from its icy cage, but past attempts to do this by heating the hydrates proved prohibitively difficult. The Canadian-Japanese expedition successfully produced up to 4,000 cubic meters of gas a day during a six-day trial in 2008 using depressurization.

"I think [the Gulf of Mexico find] and Mallik are two revolutionary events," says Timothy Collett, a geologist with the USGS and one of the world's foremost authorities on gas hydrates.

[...]

I didn't believe that number when I read it, and I don't believe it now. It's casual dissemination positively reeks of presumption. In short, it was pulled out of some PR flacks b_tth@le.

Where is the reference? Net-energy analysis is a serious discipline. It is not a throwaway.

Of course you don't believe it. If they shoved the calculations right in your face you still wouldn't believe it.

Here is a link with a long list of scientific reports and publications related to the Canadian hydrate study, which is where the 10%-15% number came from. Sorry, you have to pay $$ to read the individual papers. No doubt that fact will help you hold on to your belief:
>>> LINK <<<

[copious.abundance]

OF, there are no studies of energy return in your linked page.

Another lie. How do you know? Maybe this one includes, among other thigns, an analysis of net energy:

"Scientific Results from the Mallik 2002 Gas Hydrate Production Research Well Program, Mackenzie Delta, Northwest Territories, Canada."

Or maybe this one:

"Summary and implications of the Mallik 2002 Gas Hydrate Production Research Well Program."

There are several in that list which could contain such an analysis. Perhaps one of them is where the Technology Review article got their 10%-15% number. Or maybe one of the hydrates researchers discussed that number during a presentation and repeated the number to the writer of the Technology Review article.

You act as if you know more about this stuff than Natural Resources Canada, the Department of Energy, the Scripps Oceanography Institute and MIT (who writes Technology Review magazine), but of course you are lying through your teeth. It's the only way to hold on to your worldview.

Why should there be net-energy analysis? With cheap petroleum this subject was always neglected, is not assigned in engineering schools, and energy production companies apparently still don't understand that geology trumps economics.

Really only Pimentel bothers. He studies agricultural products (sugar/starch and cellulosic ethanol, and biodiesel) and was the only one who understood that corn ethanol was a waste of time (except as an additive) and that it would go nowhere.

I predicted that and was right. You can go back as far as you want here and you will find that I called this a waste from the beginning. Hydrates are the same.

Lol, another act of self-delusion. Hydrates are a naturally-ocurring resource. Corn and sugar cane for ethanol has to be grown.

[copious.abundance]

No study in that list analyzes net energy,

The lying continues. You do not know that, you merely assume it.

I'll play your game: Prove to me that no study in that list analyses net energy.

[copious.abundance]

Here are some more titles which could possibly contain that 10%-15% number we saw in the TR article. The one in red sounds particularly promising.



"Production potential of the Mallik field reservoir"

"Storage and handling of natural gas hydrate"

"Drilling operations, JAPEX/JNOC/GSC Mallik 2L-38 gas hydrate research well"

"Overview of science program, JAPEX/JNOC/GSC Mallik 2L-38 gas hydrate research well"

"Scientific results from JAPEX/JNOC/GSC Mallik 2L-38 gas hydrate research well, Mackenzie Delta, Northwest Territories, Canada"

"Scientific results from JAPEX/JNOC/GSC Mallik 2L-38 gas hydrate research well, Mackenzie Delta, Northwest Territories, Canada"

[several more like the two immediately above]

"Numerical simulation studies of gas production scenarios from hydrate accumulations at the Mallik site, Mackenzie Delta, Canada"

"Mallik 2002 Gas Hydrate Production Research Well Program, Mackenzie Delta, Northwest Territories: well data and interactive data viewer"

"Analysis of the JAPEX/JNOC/GSC et al. Mallik 5L-38 gas hydrate thermal-production test through numerical simulation"

"Numerical study of constant-rate gas production from in situ gas hydrate by depressurization"

"Mallik 2002 cross-well seismic experiment: project design, data acquisition, and modelling studies"

"Real-time gas analysis at the JAPEX/JNOC/GSC et al. Mallik 5L-38 gas hydrate production research well"

[dohboi]

Dude wrote:

"perhaps the hydrate structure is keeping the methane encased in the reservoir and tapping them would liberate them through cracks in some fashion"

That in fact seems to be the case:

Formation of gas hydrate in the seabed acts as a barrier to rising natural gas, inhibiting its expulsion through the seafloor and into the ocean.

link

(With credits to Cid for posting this on another thread.)

[copious.abundance]

This GOM hydrate find seems to be getting a lot of press:

>>> US Gas Hydrates Find Has Worldwide Implications <<<

[TheAntiDoomer]

This GOM hydrate find seems to be getting a lot of press:

>>> US Gas Hydrates Find Has Worldwide Implications <<<

kewl

[shortonsense]

No study in that list analyzes net energy,

The lying continues. You do not know that, you merely assume it.

I'll play your game: Prove to me that no study in that list analyses net energy.

It's not there. Read the titles.

That really says it all when it comes to PStarrs mastery on this topic, isn't it? If the title doesn't fit within his preconceived notions ( not the actual writeup, its substance, references or conclusions mind you, but the TITLE ) then OBVIOUSLY who cares what the thing actually SAYS.

Thats like reading something titled "The Bible" and thinking it doesn't have anything to do with Jews because gee, its not in the title. Gee, Hubbert didn't say anything about natural gas because "Nuclear Energy And The Fossil Fuels" doesn't say "gas" in the title somewhere. Gee, there isn't any locally grown produce in America. Gee, there isn't any locally raised beef in America. Gee, hydrates have never been produced. Gee, hydrates are only under deep water.

And just for fun, and because its in the title, and the guy is a PhD research scientist from a non teaching college, I offer this:

J. Kargel, "Clathrate Hydrates on Mars, Geological, Geophysical and Resource Implications"

Right there in the title Pstarr, just for those with attention deficit disorder!

Maybe you should publish something along the lines of what your title knowledge is capable of, like "Me says its impossibles to worry bout dem hydrates and I bees expert at po.com cuz dey sayz so"