(December 15, 2010)
Natural gas could provide the nation with a buffer in the transition to
lower oil consumption/increased development of renewables--if the nation had a functioning, pragmatic
energy policy.
In a recent meeting with correspondent Ray W., a longtime consultant in the energy
industry, I asked Ray one key question: is the natural gas "story" for real?
By that I mean: is the new fracturing technology ("fraccing") really a game-changer
in terms of increasing supply in a truly meaningful fashion?
The simple answer is yes: the nation has far more accessible natural gas than it
did before fraccing was introduced.
In terms of our relative location on the doom-and-gloom spectrum, I would place
both Ray and I solidly at the far end of the spectrum (i.e. the status quo
is unsustainable on multiple fundamental levels, and timelines of abrupt change
are close at hand). In the following report, Ray makes it very clear that
natural gas is not a panacea: the status quo remains unstable and unsustainable.
But the relative abundance of natural gas in North America does give us some "breathing
room" (literally) which could ease the transition to a post-oil economy that used
radically less fossil fuels and relied more on efficiencies and renewable energy
sources.
That hopeful possibility would require a national energy plan, which the U.S.
does not have. The problem with relying on the "market" to resolve the looming
fall-off in oil imports is the market is blind to the future until the future is
the present.
Technologies which make no financial sense now when oil is "only" $80/barrel will
make all sorts of financial sense when oil is $160/barrel or $320/barrel--but by
then, it will be too late to scale up alternatives. Price can double in a few months,
but it takes ten years and hundreds of billions of dollars in capital investment
to scale up new technologies.
The other problem with the "market" is that the Central State is the determinant
factor: if you add up all the politically designed subsidies for fossil fuels and
"alternative energy,"
then the nation does have a haphazard "energy policy"--it's just politically motivated
to support "favored friends" and public relations campaigns,
as opposed to being well-conceived, fact-based and pragmatic.
Here is Ray's report:
Of the three main fossil fuels, natural gas is uniquely situated.
Oil is nearing peak production. To find new reserves, companies such as BP, Shell,
and ExxonMobil venture into ever more hostile environments, both physical and political,
spend ever higher amounts of money, and take ever greater risks. Deepwater Horizon,
the oil platform that detonated and sank in the Gulf of Mexico and spewed four
million barrels of crude into one of the world’s most productive fisheries, is a
tame example.
For real expense and environmental risk, look at the tar sands in
Canada; for political risk, look at the Niger Delta. The increasing cost of oil
exploration and production will consume a larger share of GDP, just as health
care does, and if we continue to expand our dependency on oil, we will continue to
erode the standard of living for all but the very wealthy. The trajectory of the
price of oil is structurally upward.
Coal is simply nasty. It’s advantage: it’s plentiful and therefore cheap. Otherwise,
it’s a supremely destructive substance at all stages of its exploitation, from mining
to transport to combustion to ash disposal.
Natural gas is far more plentiful than oil and far less environmentally destructive
than coal.
Gas produces about 40% of the carbon dioxide of coal for the same kilowatt-hour of
power generation. It leaves no solid waste at all, unlike coal, which leaves
tremendous piles of ash that must be disposed of and that are susceptible to
environmental catastrophe. The Kingston spill in 2008 deposited 5.4 million cubic
yards (about four times the debris of the World Trade Centers) in the Emory and
Clinch Rivers in Tennessee.
Gas contains no mercury, lead, arsenic, or other
heavy metals as does coal. At pipeline quality, its combustion produces no sulfur
dioxide (the main cause of acid rain) and far less nitrous oxide (the main cause
of smog) than coal.
Gas is transported by pipeline, which is extremely efficient. Pipelines, being
underground, are also visually and logistically unobtrusive and, despite the
recent tragedy in San Bruno, California, generally safe. Far more people have
been killed in coal-related accidents, not to mention aviation or automobile
accidents, than have been in gas-related accidents.
Now we come to extraction, where things get more complicated.
In the past three years, the amount of natural gas produced in this country has
increased 16%, from 18 to 21 trillion cubic feet. This is attributable to recent
rapid advances in two drilling techniques: horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing.
The high price of gas earlier in the decade spurred the development of these
technologies, which extract gas from solid rock, rather than from conventional
pooled deposits.
Extraction presents some serious environmental issues. Some gas deposits contain a
fair amount of sulfur, which must be removed and disposed of. Most extracted sulfur
is made into sulfuric acid for industrial purposes. Other deposits contain carbon
dioxide in quantities as much as 12 percent by volume, which reduces the resource’s
greenhouse gas advantage. And it takes a great deal of energy to drill for gas. The
rigs generally run on diesel. The recently developed techniques for extracting gas
from shale formations also consume large amounts of water. That said, gas extraction
doesn’t use nearly the amount of energy or water as coal mine excavation.
Water will be the limiting factor for expanding gas production in the United States.
Some shale gas producers have been working diligently to find environmentally acceptable
ways to minimize the use of water, mostly through reuse. In shale gas production,
the water is injected under pressure to fracture the rock, which liberates the gas.
The injected water contains several chemicals to provide for the optimal viscosity
to enhance fracturing while still being liquid enough to withdraw easily. Most producers
use less than a dozen chemicals, which comprise 0.5 percent of the injection stream.
The very high numbers of chemicals (approaching 600) quoted in the film "Gasland"
are an amalgamation of all the chemicals ever used for fracturing across the industry.
Some producers are racing to gain first-mover advantage in the shale plays, which seem
to pop up every three months. These producers tend to be less cautious than others,
and this is how accidents happen. But there is nothing intrinsically more hazardous
or risky about drilling for gas in shale formations than drilling for conventional gas,
or drilling for oil, or mining for coal.
Gas-bearing shale tends to be several thousand feet (one to two miles) below the
aquifer. There is virtually no way for the gas to migrate into the aquifer except
through the vertical component of the well that penetrates the water table en route
to the gas resource. Gas wells, like oil wells, are encased in cement to protect
the surrounding ground from seepage. Sloppy procedures can result in bad cement jobs.
But this risk is present for any gas or oil well; it is not particular to shale gas.
The United States can substantially reduce oil usage and coal usage and improve carbon
dioxide emissions by increasing the production and consumption of natural gas. We can
reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20% within weeks, simply by switching about 15%
of coal-fired electric generation to gas-fired, using existing spare capacity in the
gas-fired fleet.
There is plenty of gas to make this happen without risking huge
price run-ups. Gas prices on average might move up about $1.00 per MMBtu, from the
$4.00-$5.00 range to the $5.00-$6.00 range. While this would be a 20-25% increase,
other costs would go down, specifically the costs of coal-caused pollution. This
does not consider the future value preserved by slowing climate change. Also,
increased demand would spur increased production, which would moderate such price
increases.
Eventually, gas use will have to be reduced if we are to avoid the worst of climate
change. Increased gas use is a transitional strategy for the next 20-30 years,
to provide time for renewable energy and efficiency technologies to be developed
and deployed. However, even at that point, gas would still have a role. It is the
logical fuel to use to complement the intermittent nature of renewable electric
generation.
Technological improvements are likely in electric storage, but electric
storage is unlikely to be economical enough to span all 24 hours of the day. Gas,
delivered through pipelines, is an on-demand electric generation fuel, unlike coal
or oil, and can respond instantaneously as minute-to-minute consumer demand and
renewable generation fluctuate.
If we craft public policy to favor gas to displace coal and oil, we have to be
careful not to grow complacent. Gas is not a panacea for climate change. It is still
a fossil fuel. However, it is a readily available, pragmatic, interim solution
as we move to renewables and efficiency over the next 20-30 years.
Thank you, Ray, for providing the context for a pragmatic national energy policy.
Holiday offers: One copy left of
Horsemen of the Red Hand: Book Two of the Operation SERF Trilogy
by Chris Sullins: $29.33 (shipping included) gets you this novel and a signed copy
of Survival+ The Primer--plus a bonus
embroidered military-style patch that is based on the flag of a new group introduced
in the story.
A "ten seconds left, Hail-Mary pass from the 51-yard line"
gift idea for teens 15 and older: a signed copy of
Claire's Great Adventure, my novel of pirates, mysterious
Chinese Tongs, the underworlds of Paris and Shanghai, and of course 16-year old Claire
and her fellow adventurer Camden, for $17.70 (shipping included). Supplies are
limited to the few copies I have on hand.
New recipes on
What's for Dinner at Your House?--Elsewhere Cafe Muffins, and Louisa's Vegetarian
Baked Beans
If you would like to post a comment where others can read it, please go to
DailyJava.net,
(registering only takes a moment), select Of Two Minds-Charles Smith, and then go to The daily topic.
To see other readers recent comments, go to
New Posts.
Order Survival+: Structuring Prosperity for Yourself and the Nation and/or
Survival+ The Primer
from your local bookseller or from amazon.com or in ebook
and
Kindle formats.
A 20% discount is available from the publisher.
Of Two Minds is now available via Kindle:
Of Two Minds blog-Kindle
"This guy is THE leading visionary on reality.
He routinely discusses things which no one else has talked about, yet,
turn out to be quite relevant months later."
--Walt Howard, commenting about CHS on another blog.
NOTE: contributions are acknowledged in the order received. Your name and email
remain confidential and will not be given to any other individual, company or agency.
Thank you, William H. ($30), for your splendidly generous donation
to this site--
I am greatly honored by your support and your readership.
|
|
Thank you, Michael P. ($25), for your extremely generous contributions
to this site--
I am greatly honored by your support and your readership.
|
Or send him coins, stamps or quatloos via mail--please
request P.O. Box address.
Your readership is greatly appreciated with or without a donation.
For more on this subject and a wide array of other topics, please visit
my weblog.
All content, HTML coding, format design, design elements and images copyright ©
2010 Charles Hugh Smith, All rights
reserved in all media, unless otherwise credited or noted.
I would be honored if you linked this wEssay to your site, or printed a copy for your own use.