Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Uses and Costs of Substituting Natural Gas

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

Re: US Has Almost 100-Year Supply of Natural Gas

Unread postby uhoh » Sun 23 May 2010, 13:04:43

It is certainly confusing. The shales, shale gas such as the Haynesville shale and shale oil, such as the Bakken and now the Eagle Ford shale, certainly do seem to be a game changer but I don't know if even they can avert peak oil. I do think it will slow it down. But then I read this and that about how much demand will grow and that's the scary part.
uhoh
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon 26 May 2008, 03:00:00

Re: US Has Almost 100-Year Supply of Natural Gas

Unread postby shortonsense » Sun 23 May 2010, 15:50:34

uhoh wrote:It is certainly confusing. The shales, shale gas such as the Haynesville shale and shale oil, such as the Bakken and now the Eagle Ford shale, certainly do seem to be a game changer but I don't know if even they can avert peak oil.


With peak oil being a historical event at this point, naturally gas certainly can't avert it. And you aren't the only one using the words "game changer" when referring to what such huge amounts of cleaner, domestically available and plentiful resource can do to the American energy picture.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 71268.html


uhoh wrote: I do think it will slow it down. But then I read this and that about how much demand will grow and that's the scary part.


The future is inherently scary I think. Humans like certainty...and the future doesn't have near enough of that for them.
User avatar
shortonsense
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00

Re: US Has Almost 100-Year Supply of Natural Gas

Unread postby americandream » Sun 23 May 2010, 16:50:06

Nonsense, thr future is inherently a nothing. It's what we do in the here and now that determines how it turns out. It's like anything in life, you cause tomorrows effects in how you live in the now. Take drugs, you ruin your health, eat to excess, ditto. Run a global economy on pie in the sky growth, you damn sure you're in trouble tomorrow.

Rein all that in, create a world economy that serves humankind and our your rather modest needs rather than some bloated privateer and it's contrived ballast of cornucopia, and the future could be rather cosy (of course it may be lacking in the excesses we take for granted but then again, do we really need a world awash with an army of idiots, all ensconced in their tweeting world of virtual society?)
americandream
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 8650
Joined: Mon 18 Oct 2004, 03:00:00

Re: US Has Almost 100-Year Supply of Natural Gas

Unread postby shortonsense » Sun 23 May 2010, 17:34:31

americandream wrote:Nonsense, thr future is inherently a nothing. It's what we do in the here and now that determines how it turns out.


Not really. Such a concept ignores random chance. Certainly a meteor the size of a small building hitting your house has nothing to do with how pious you are, how many good acts you've committed, or how much you've given to charity, or how well educated you are.

For many people it only requires a much smaller example for them to be afraid of the uncertainty the future holds, someone losing a job, an addict in the family, early cardiac arrest.

americandream wrote:Rein all that in, create a world economy that serves humankind and our your rather modest needs rather than some bloated privateer and it's contrived ballast of cornucopia, and the future could be rather cosy (of course it may be lacking in the excesses we take for granted but then again, do we really need a world awash with an army of idiots, all ensconced in their tweeting world of virtual society?)


There are many uncertainties in the future. Limiting your perspective to only those you THINK you can control is amusing, and incorrect. Some people approach these uncertainties full steam ahead at all times, I would like to think that doing this is an advantage because its my personal philosophy. But certainly I appear to be closer to your position than those who are afraid of the future just because its...well...unpredictable.
User avatar
shortonsense
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00

Re: US Has Almost 100-Year Supply of Natural Gas

Unread postby rangerone314 » Tue 25 May 2010, 18:16:32

I don't know about anyone else, but I really trust the competency of the oil & natural gas industries.

After all, why would they lie?

I mean they have demonstrated their competence and that they deserve our trust time and time again, small exceptions being the Exxon Valdez, the Gulf of Mexico spill, lol
An ideology is by definition not a search for TRUTH-but a search for PROOF that its point of view is right

Equals barter and negotiate-people with power just take

You cant defend freedom by eliminating it-unknown

Our elected reps should wear sponsor patches on their suits so we know who they represent-like Nascar-Roy
User avatar
rangerone314
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4105
Joined: Wed 03 Dec 2008, 04:00:00
Location: Maryland

Study Says Natural Gas Use Likely to Double

Unread postby Graeme » Fri 25 Jun 2010, 00:32:15

Study Says Natural Gas Use Likely to Double

Natural gas will provide an increasing share of America’s energy needs over the next several decades, doubling its share of the energy market to 40 percent, from 20 percent, according to a report to be released Friday by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The increase, the report concluded, will come largely at the expense of coal and will be driven both by abundant supplies of natural gas — made more available by shale drilling — and by measures to restrict the carbon dioxide emissions that are linked to climate change.

In the long term, however, the future may be dimmer for natural gas if stricter regulations are put in place to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 — a goal set by President Obama. Although lower in carbon than coal, natural gas is still too carbon-intensive to be used under such a target absent some method of carbon capture, the authors of the report concluded.

The report, one of a series on energy resources, is the result of a two-year effort by 14 prominent energy experts, led by Ernest J. Moniz, an M.I.T. professor who is a former under secretary of energy. Previous reports focused on nuclear power and coal. The report was financed in part by the American Clean Skies Foundation, which represents the interests of the natural gas industry.

In the report, the authors point out that there is a mismatch between current energy practice in the United States and the nation’s energy goals. As zero-carbon wind is added to the national electric system, the report said, it is being used to reduce consumption of natural gas, which is relatively benign in carbon impact, rather than coal, which has twice as much carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour. The reason is that gas is more expensive than coal.

Gas will eventually replace some of the coal used to make electricity, the study predicts, and gas will be the benchmark against which other carbon-saving technologies like wind or nuclear will be measured. But those other technologies will eventually be needed.


nytimes
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13258
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: Study Says Natural Gas Use Likely to Double

Unread postby Graeme » Sat 26 Jun 2010, 11:26:05

For climate relief, US will turn to gas

If the United States — and by extension the world — has a hope of shifting to a low-carbon future, that shift will almost certainly involve burning a vast volume of natural gas. So concludes an assessment by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, who estimate that the US could reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector by at least 10 percent virtually overnight by shutting down inefficient coal-fired plants and ramping up gas-powered generators.

"In a carbon-constrained future, gas plays a particularly important role as a bridge," says Ernest Moniz, who headed the project as director of MIT's Energy Initiative (MITEI).

Burning natural gas to generate electricity emits roughly half as much carbon dioxide as coal. Following up on earlier reports covering nuclear power and coal, Moniz and his colleagues took an in-depth look at natural gas supplies and the role they could play as the world moves toward a low-carbon energy system. The new report on The Future of Natural Gas [link to pdf of report] comes at a time when 'hydraulic fracturing' technologies have opened up huge reserves of gas associated with shale formations across the US. The technique, which involves injecting high-pressure fluid into rock to open cracks and release gas, has also raised environmental concerns because of contamination risks to aquifers and surface water.


nature
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13258
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: Study Says Natural Gas Use Likely to Double

Unread postby Graeme » Sat 26 Jun 2010, 12:19:06

In response, I can only quote their report because I don't have any further details.

In the transportation sector, the study found a somewhat smaller role for
natural gas. The use of compressed or liquefied natural gas as a fuel for
vehicles could help to displace oil and reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
but to a limited extent because of the high cost of converting vehicles to
use these fuels. By contrast, making methanol, a liquid fuel, out of natural
gas requires much less up-front conversion cost and could have an impact
on oil usage and thus improve energy security, but would not reduce
greenhouse gases.

Remove policy and regulatory barriers to natural gas as a transportation
fuel.


Natural-gas consumption will increase dramatically and will largely
displace coal in the power generation sector by 2050 (the time horizon of
the study) under a modeling scenario where, through carbon emissions
pricing, industrialized nations reduce CO2 emissions by 50 percent by
2050, and large emerging economies, e.g. China, India and Brazil reduce
CO2 emissions by 50 percent by 2070. This assumes incremental
reductions in the current price structures of the alternatives, including
renewables, nuclear and carbon capture and sequestration.
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13258
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: New Zealand

250 Years OF Natural Gas

Unread postby Hughj » Wed 22 Jun 2011, 15:01:11

Hughj
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Sun 12 Jun 2011, 14:07:49

Re: 250 Years OF Natural Gas

Unread postby ian807 » Wed 22 Jun 2011, 15:15:30

Hughj wrote:Lot's of it here too!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12245633

Ummm... No.

For practical purposes, we have enough oil to make it a useful energy source for perhaps another 50 years - at most, assuming the infrastructure supply chains last that long (doubtful), resource nationalism does not become the order of the day (more doubtful), and the economics of oil extraction remain workable (Good luck).

The 30 billion barrels of oil the world uses each year adds 160 exajoules of energy to civilization, more or less. Suppose tomorrow, we tried to replace that much oil with natural gas. How long do you figure natural gas would last, particularly when gas plays tend to go into decline much more rapidly than oil reservoirs (http://www.oilandgasevaluationreport.com/2010/03/articles/oil-patch-economics/shale-economics-watch-the-curve/)?

Go ahead. Get a calculator, pencil and paper. We'll wait. You can pick up the relevant figures here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_mile_of_oil

Cheers!
User avatar
ian807
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Mon 03 Nov 2008, 04:00:00

Re: 250 Years OF Natural Gas

Unread postby Hughj » Wed 22 Jun 2011, 15:36:51

No Ian, my calculator will remain in the drawer. I choose to consider this great news and
will take the IEA's word for this. Fact is, it is probably conservative, just like the history
of oil reserves have been.

Furthermore, every truck and car that is converted to LNG or CNG makes OPEC's job
more difficult. When crude demand drops 20 percent, pricing will again follow the supply
and demand curve.

Hugh
Hughj
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Sun 12 Jun 2011, 14:07:49

Re: 250 Years OF Natural Gas

Unread postby sicophiliac » Wed 22 Jun 2011, 16:26:10

I am curious to why there is so little talk of gas to liquids technology out there given the cheap abundant natural gas and expensive and scarce oil supplies. There is Sasol from South Africa that's got a few gas to liquid projects going based on what they have already done with coal to liquids but other than them, at least to my knowledge there isn't much going on here.
User avatar
sicophiliac
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 435
Joined: Tue 28 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Location: san jose CA

Re: 250 Years OF Natural Gas

Unread postby seahorse3 » Wed 22 Jun 2011, 16:31:01

There's lots of NG, but nobody is using for transportation, despite Boone Picken's best lobbying efforts.
seahorse3
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 375
Joined: Tue 01 Mar 2011, 16:14:13

Re: 250 Years OF Natural Gas

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Wed 22 Jun 2011, 17:21:53

I am curious to why there is so little talk of gas to liquids technology out there given the cheap abundant natural gas and expensive and scarce oil supplies. There is Sasol from South Africa that's got a few gas to liquid projects going based on what they have already done with coal to liquids but other than them, at least to my knowledge there isn't much going on here.


I believe it has to do with the fact the technology is patented. I'm aware of 3 different technologies which were patented...there is the Shell methodology, Syntroleum and Sasol. There might be 1 or 2 others, I'm not sure.

Sasol has concentrated on looking for places outside of South Africa/Mozambique where they can apply the technology where there is a combination of gas resource and high demand for diesel. As a consequence they have signed deals in North America and I know they have been looking at deals in Australia. Their view is that diesel demand elsewhere in the world isn't high enough.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7685
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 03:00:00

Re: 250 Years OF Natural Gas

Unread postby Hughj » Wed 22 Jun 2011, 17:30:08

I think it is because of the schizophrenic character of manipulated world oil market.
Every runup is followed by a precipitous price drop, some prolonged in length, making investment
in any alternative a marginal investment. Remember.....$22 average crude for 140 years.

Hugh
Hughj
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Sun 12 Jun 2011, 14:07:49

Re: 250 Years OF Natural Gas

Unread postby Logic » Wed 22 Jun 2011, 17:53:53

Hughj wrote:No Ian, my calculator will remain in the drawer. I choose to consider this great news and
will take the IEA's word for this. Fact is, it is probably conservative, just like the history
of oil reserves have been.


Well, your calculator would give you more accurate information to base you opinion on. However, let's just look at the story using common sense.

The 250 years is based on current use. If we started using natural gas for more than a token number of vehicles, I suspect we would go through the reserves pretty darn quick.

Later in the article the author indicates that they doubt that we will be able to get all that NG.
In addition, much of that NG is available through 'fraking' which uses a lot of energy to get at.

Part of a solution? Possibly. 250 years worth, doubtful.
"We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors... we borrow it from our children"
American Indian proverb
Logic
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue 21 Jun 2011, 08:11:38

Re: 250 Years OF Natural Gas

Unread postby Hughj » Wed 22 Jun 2011, 18:54:11

Welcome to PO, Logic. Honored to respond to your first post. I'm excited to hear someone
here using the word "solution" in a sentence.

I really don't feel qualified to second-guess the IEA's math. If it ends up being somewhat
less than 250 years, I'm good with that, as will my daughter, and my future grandchildren.

Now between you and me, just as technology has broadened the time horizon of natural
gas, don't you think it is going to do the same for other petroleum products? In the 1860's,
oil production meant what could be scooped off the surface and packaged. Then it meant
what was available in the US at a depth of 500 feet. Then we got to 2000 feet. Then 5000.
Then injection for recovery. Then Middle East oil, South America, Alaska. Now we are
drilling below the basement rocks for both gas and oil. Fracking, oil sand, shale,hydrites.......
Hubbert would be proud, wouldn't he?

I am hopeful about the future.

Hugh
Hughj
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Sun 12 Jun 2011, 14:07:49

Re: 250 Years OF Natural Gas

Unread postby Serial_Worrier » Thu 23 Jun 2011, 19:31:22

Hugh - welcome to the cornucopia. Land of plenty. Unlimited resources and bounty. Have fun and don't eat too much corn on the cob!
User avatar
Serial_Worrier
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1548
Joined: Thu 05 Jun 2008, 03:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 61 guests

cron