Disturbing warnings about coming Natural Gas shortages.

[JohnyCanuck]

Check out this presentation (link below) by Julian Darley to CSIS (Center for Strategic and International Studies) Washington, DC. Darley presents graphs and charts explaining the ins and outs of North American and world natural gas production and the foreceast is that it doesn't look good. Demand for natural gas is climbing while production in North America is peaking about right now (reached the point of diminishing returns on new well drilling) and basically the only practical alternative to get sizeable quantities of natural gas into the North American market will be by importing Liquified Natural Gas in ocean going tankers from Russia and the Middle East. However that is only a stop gap measure, will be extremely expensive, and will only delay the inevitable day of reckoning when the world is confronted with the unavoidable fact that there is a finite supply of hydrocarbons.

As Darley points out we rely on natural gas for much more than heating homes and generating power, it's also used as feedstock in many industrialized processes and in the production of fertilizers.

If you have a DSL/Broadband presentation and Real Player you can get the video presentation of Darly addressing the CSIS while a slide show simultaneously displays lecture notes and charts/graphs etc. Here's the link:

http://ram.postcarbon.org/RAM/2003/06/JulianDarley.DC-CSIS.NatGasCrisis.2003-06-17.P1.ram

You can right click and save to your hard drive first or left click and just run the video stream directly from the web site.

If you only have dialup you can go to www.postcarbon.org and look at some of the other options to view the material. Look for

PRESENTATION: ‘US Natural Gas: When Crunch Becomes Crisis’

towards the bottom of the monitor when you connect.

Julian Darley, BTW, describes himself as an environmental philosopher. Here's a brief excerpt from his bio.

Julian is a British environmental philosopher who researches and writes about non-market and non-technology-based responses to global environmental degradation. He is also engaged in piloting such responses.

In order to further both dissemination of ideas and pilot projects, Julian runs an Internet broadcasting station (GlobalPublicMedia.com), develops OpenSource web database sites for non-profits and civil society organisations, and is currently writing a book on how and why we need ‘global relocalisation’ of the economy, society and culture.

Julian has an eclectic education: an MSc in Environment and Sociology from University of Surrey, UK, which led to a published thesis examining the coverage of complex environmental issues in current affairs programmes at the BBC; an MA in Journalism and Communications from the University of Texas at Austin, culminating in a thesis about the elimination of television; and a BA in Music & Russian, which led to being a classical music critic, followed strangely enough, by working on, and eventually directing, rock videos.

http://www.juliandarley.com/

[Parche]

1. When

Bush and cheney flatulate, that would take care of the shortage.

[Maple]

2. We can make

'natural' gas.

Methane is created in garbage dumps for free.

[JohnyCanuck]

4. I don't think methane from garbage dumps and cow farts

will provide enough to ameliorate the CH4 shortages when the crunch really comes.

[rustydad]

23. garbage

We have a municpal dump for approximatly a cumminity of 200,000. It captures methane and uses it to power a large internal compustion engine that drives a generator to produce enough electricity for about 5,000 homes. That doesn't put much of a dent in the natural gas used to power up the 80,000 homes that produce the trash. Not to mention all the fuel needed to haul the trash and bury it. No help here I am afraid. Bob

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

3. You know...

The local landfill is having a terrible time with odors coming off of the landfill and offending the surrounding populace. These odors, caused by increased production of NATURAL GAS(Methane) from the landfill, will be trapped by some form of temporary or permanent cap. Interestingly, I have not heard much about what they will do with the collected methane. Something tells me they won't do much.

We just don't so intelligent energy stewardship well. Even when the lunch is free.

[treepig]

9. natural gas (methane) is odorless, tasteless, and colorless

therefore the foul odors from the landfill must be due to some other factor(s).

however, in the future i suspect that today's landfills will be recognized as having commercial potential, for example the biomass could be turned into the petroleum-replacement products and the inorganics (such as metals) can be 'mined' and re-used.

[amandabeech]

5. The Coming Gas Shortage Is Real

At least imho. But seriously, this is my first serious post. I've had time on my hands the past few years that I have been in exile in a conservative area. I've done a lot, and I do mean a lot, of reading on oil and gas depletion and alternative energy. Landfill methane may be a nice local supplement to the energy supply, but the amounts of CH4 that we use to generate electricity, heat homes, businesses and water, and produce heat for chemical and manufacturing processes is truly astonishing, and there's simply not very much left in North America. With LNG imports, we will be competing with Japan, China, Korea, and, soon, Europe. But the gas problem is nothing compared with oil, perhaps starting as early as 2015. For more information, I suggest you read (and read a lot before you post and look like an idiot)messages on two Yahoo lists: energyresources and runningonempty2. Also check out books by Deffeyes and Richard Heinberg, for starters. Also, google "Matthew Simmons", an investment banker to Halliburton, located in Houston. He's in an absolute panic these days. I certainly hope that these people, geologists and investment bankers, are wrong, because if they are at all right, life could be rough 30-40-50 years from now, and not just from global warming. Amanda

[bigtree]

6. collected this last week

Inner Mongolia Natural Gas Field Confirmed Largest in China

The newly proven reserves of a natural gas field in north China's Inner Mongolia has grown by 313.1 billion cu m, making it the largest natural gas field in China, the Guangming Daily reports Saturday.

The figure brings the total proven reserves in the Sulige Natural Gas Field to 533.6 billion cu m, according to the paper, which cites the figures issued by the Ministry of Land and Resources.

Located in the rural part of Ordos City, the gas field is covered by desert. Large-scale exploration began in the field in 1999, and the proven reserves of the field was 220 billion cu m in 2001.

Anyone know if this find is significant?

[JohnyCanuck]

7. If my math is right, this discovery = roughly 6 months US consumption

According to this web site http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/energy/stats_ctry/Stat1.html US consumption in 1998 was 21.34tcf (trillion cubic feet). The estimates are that this Chinese field has grown by 313.1 billion cubic meters.

To convert cubic feet to cubic meters multiply cf x .0283


21.34cf x.0283 = 0.604cu m
or 21.34tcf = 0.604tcu m = 604billion cu m (annual US consumption)
So this new discovery would add the equivelant of roughly 6 months of 1998 US consumption to the reserves (if my math is correct).

[bigtree]

8. thanks JohnyCanuk

for breaking that down for me.

[Dissenting_Prole]

12. Prayer

Matthew Simmons was recently asked by From the Wilderness, "What is the solution" to the natural gas crisis?

Simmons: "I don't think there is one… The solution is to pray. Pray for mild weather and a mild winter. Pray for no hurricanes and to stop the erosion of natural gas supplies. Under the best of circumstances, if all prayers are answered there will be no crisis for maybe two years. After that it's a certainty."

When the CEO of the world's largest Energy Investment Bank suggests that the solution to North America's gas crisis is prayer, you can bet there is a very real problem.

[zeaper]

10. Natrual gas from coal

We have lots of coal and coal can be made into natural gas. They are doing it in North Dakota now.

Also have a lot of “Coal Bed Methane” which is natural gas from coal seams. This is being developed in Wyoming among other coal producing states.

[Dissenting_Prole]

11. Coal bed methane production

is apparently a very environmentally-unfriendly process.

Impacts of Coal Bed Methane Development on
The Environment
http://www.ehcitizens.org/cbmgas/is6_impacts_on_environment.htm

[zeaper]

13. Development

There are a lot of alarmists and anti development types out there claiming all kinds of things about coal bed methane. I live in coal bed methane country and yes there are some problems, which I see being addressed, thanks to concerned citizens.

One concern that your link brings up that I have not heard used is the explosion/poison dangers from leaking natural gas. Strange, this has been happing (on a very limited basis) since we started using natural gas but some groups continue to try to make a big deal out of it.

[JohnyCanuck]

14. This is what Darley said about coal bed methane in his lecture.

You see the rise of coal bed methane, it looks grand, I mean, if you were in industry, as some of you no doubt are, this looks like a lovely rise in output production. The trouble is it's very small relative to US gas demand. You're talking about 1 to 2 trillion cubic feet a year and bear in mind the US is using 22 to 23.

http://www.postcarbon.org/info/2003/06/JulianDarley.DC-CSIS.NatGasCrisis.2003-06-17_files/frame.htm

When you click on the link, look for point #33 US Natural Gas Production on the left side of the screen, click on it and it will pull up a graph of current and projected natural gas production with the proportion provided by coal bed methane production in light blue. At the bottom of the screen you'll see Darley's comment, posted above.



For a diagram of a coal bed methane well see the link and click on point #35.

http://www.postcarbon.org/info/2003/06/JulianDarley.DC-CSIS.NatGasCrisis.2003-06-17_files/frame.htm

Edited to clarify instructions on viewing links.
Edit #2 Removed some incorrect information, re. the use of water in methane from coal bed production. Apparently the water used in methane production is not externally supplied (as I first thought), it is water pumped out from within the coal bed (which is usually saline and too toxic to be used for irrigation etc). The reduction in water pressure as the water is pumped out allows the natural gas to escape from the coal.

[zeaper]

15. Synthetic natural gas

Even if the “projections” are true just because an energy source will not provide all the needed energy does not mean that it should not be pursued. Probably one of the biggest problems with the coal bed methane development is the water that is discharged. At least in the northern Wyoming/Southern Montana region the existing creeks and rivers have such low quality water that some pretty bad stuff can be discharged and still improve the steam water quality.

By no means should water be discharged that will lower water quality. This link shows water quality numbers (conductivity, bottom of the page). As I see it regional weather has a much greater effect than any discharges.

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/mt/nwis/uv?format=gif&period=31&site_no=06324500

Something your link does not address is Synthetic natural gas see : http://www.dakotagas.com/

We will never run out of oil or gas but some day it will be cheaper to make either from coal. We have a lot of coal.

[Dissenting_Prole]

16. I read this a lot

"We will never run out of oil or gas but some day it will be cheaper to make either from coal. We have a lot of coal."

One thing that I spend a lot of time thinking about is the cost of getting that coal. Coal is heavy. Bulldozers and earthmovers require diesel fuel. Locomotives require diesel fuel. Acquisition and transportation are costs involved in producing energy. In the interest of efficiency, are we going to go back to coal-fired steam-powered backhoes and locomotives?

Not that I would complain, I find steam very romantic.

[cprise]

17. Nuclear plants use steam

Choo-choo! :)

[JohnyCanuck]

21. How much energy are you putting in compared to what you get out

zeaper, you said;

just because an energy source will not provide all the needed energy does not mean that it should not be pursued

No one is saying don't produce coal bed methane, but they are saying that as far as we can project right now and into the future coal bed methane will only be able to supply a very small proportion of NG needs. Therefore it is not a great idea to say we don't have to worry about a conventional NG shortage as we can just make up a shortage in conventional production from coal bed methane.

Also the same experts who are warning us over coming shortages in natural gas believe the world is facing a peak in oil production as well, not just gas. So there would be a double whammy with both natural gas and oil production dropping off while demand for all forms of energy continues to rise. Asian countries are trying their best to industrialize and catch up to the West, the industries in the West continue to assume they must expand to be competitive with Asia and with each other and the planet's population in general continues to grow, requiring more and more resources to sustain that growth.

After production of oil and gas has peaked, it means you have basically run out of the easily accessible oil and gas and as you continue to pump out of the ground or artificially make new oil and gas it requires greater and greater inputs of money and energy for a diminishing output of oil and/or gas. Note that the synthetic natural gas you mentioned in your post requires inputs of energy to produce the steam to complete the breakdown of the lignite and more energy use in the purification of the resulting gasses etc., not to mention the mining and shipping of the lignite coal to the gas plant.

All very energy intensive compared to drilling a well and sticking a length of pipe into the ground and letting the resulting gas flow into a pipeline. In other words, it generally requires a great deal more money and energy inputs to get the energy outputs out the other end when you working at non-conventional oil and gas production compared to conventional oil and gas production. At some point when the effects of laws of thermodynamics kicks in, you're likely to end up burning more energy as inputs than the energy you get as outputs. Burning the equivelant of two barrels of oil to get one barrel out at the other end of the process is unlikely to be sustainable.

As the law of diminishing returns kicks in and energy shortages occur and prices rise, one of the fundamental underpinnings of our traditional economies, the assumption of always having an abundant and relatively cheap source of concentrated energy to do our work for us, will be knocked for a loop.

The people who are raising these issues about a coming world production peak in conventional oil and gas are, by and large, people who would be classified as experts in the field. They are convinced that this is a serious issue that will confront us all and sooner than we think. Their belief is that our current levels of technology will not provide us alternative sources of energy that will be able to replace the concentrated energy sources like oil and gas that we and our economies have become accustomed to.

One such expert is Professor Colin Campbell PhD. He is a petroleum geologist and spent an entire career as an executive and energy consultant to business and government. Here is a link to a real player video presentation he gave at the University of Clausthall, Germany in Dec 2000 on the Peak Oil problem:

www.rz.tu-clausthal.de/realvideo/event/peak-oil.ram

If you have a problem with the video stream, the lecture notes are available here:

http://energycrisis.org/de/lecture.html

Another expert would be Mathew Simmons an investment banker managing a firm with a $56 billion investment portfolio and specialing in energy related investments. He was also on Dick Cheney's advisory board on energy in 2001.

Simmons recently addressed a meeting of the ASPO (Association for the Study of Peak Oil) meeting at the French Petroleum Institute (A French gov't institution). A transcript of his speech is avaialable here:

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/061203_simmons.html

Snip from Simmons' address to ASPO:
First of all, if you start out by saying usable energy is the world's most critical resource then obviously it is an important issue.

Without volume energy we have no sustainable water, we have no sustainable food, we now have no sustainable healthcare. And since five-sixths of the world still barely uses any energy it really is an important issue. And since five-sixths of the world is still growing fast or too fast it's even a more important issue.

What peaking does mean, in energy terms, is that once you've peaked, further growth in supply, is over. Peaking is generally, also, a relatively quick transition to a relatively serious decline at least on a basin by basin basis. And the issue then, is the world's biggest serious question.

Peaking of oil is also probably then assuming peaking of gas too. So is this issue important, I think the answer is an emphatic yes. Why does this issue evoke such controversy? Well, I think for several reasons, first of all the term "peaking", unfortunately, does suggest a bleak future. It also suggests high future energy prices and neither are pleasant thoughts.


edit:spelling

[Sufi Marmot]

18. What about biogeneration?

Can some knowledgable DUer comment on the feasibility of generating methane from methanogenic bacteria fed on agricultural waste? Even if it wouldn't be sufficient to cover all our energy needs, could it partially supplant some of them as well as supply enough methane for industrial uses?

-SM

[cprise]

19. Biodiesel is a larger source

...probably because it is portable and more efficient than having the intermediate step of biochemical conversion to methane.

* Shopping malls and hospitals are now being built with dedicated biodiesel generators (not backup).

* California used diesel locomotives fed with biodiesel as movable electric generators during the power crisis.

* Biodiesel use for transport has more than doubled each year since 1999.

* Even at far lower volume, biodiesel is set to surpass the net environmental benefit of ethanol within the new few years.

* Biodiesel has virtually become a fixture for temporary, on-site electric generation.

http://www.biodiesel.org

[treepig]

20. a nice overview of biogeneration (in general) is given at

http://www.cea.fr/gb/publications/Clefs44/an-clefs44/clefs4416a.html

with a brief mention of methane:

The second way is methanization, carried out by anaerobic fermentation, that is, decomposition through bacterial action in the absence of air, very damp substances such as algae, animal excrement or household waste. It is thus possible to obtain a gaseous mixture of methane (50 to 60%) and carbon dioxide (35 to 40%), making its use complicated and limited to in situ combustion for the production of heat and electricity

it might also be possible to produce hydrogen from bacteria:

http://www.cea.fr/gb/publications/Clefs44/an-clefs44/clefs4420a.html

(but to make this process efficient, the bacteria will need to be genetically engineered, and readers of this board are well aware of the evils of genetically-modified organisms, so that's a no-go).

by the way, if you click on the 'back to contents' link at the upper left of either of the above-cited links, you can find a nice summary of the energy technologies of tomorrow (for france, at least).

[zeaper]

22. Energy from sunlight

I like the concept of bacteria using light and water to generate hydrogen (this is just a form of photosynthesis that plants do all the time). Hopefully we can engineer bacteria to get the efficiency up, this will be needed because sunlight does not have that much energy.

I am confused why genetic engineering should be a no-go though. I look at it as just another tool. If used with out consideration it can be damaging but the potential if used responsibly is too great to ignore. Just think if prehistoric man would have taken the same approach to the use of fire as some people’s approach to the use of genetic engineering.

As for bacteria making methane from biomass, again the output and efficiency will be limited since the original source of energy are plants that have converted solar energy into hydrocarbons. As a side note, I believe that bacteria generates the methane in coal bed methane. Bacteria are chewing on coal in coal seams all the time.

[rustydad]

24. Look, the real issue is...

...we use way too much energy, most of it non renewable. We can build houses that stay heated simply by the body heat of the occupants and some sunlight. We can build cars that weigh about as much as he occupants and run partially on the occupants excrement. We can walk and bike and save money spent at the gym trying to stay healthy. There are huge amounts of energy available to save for future generations through CONSERVATION. Bob

[ramapo]

25. Lost lessons of the '70s

I just got done looking over Darley's paper & presentation and a few of Matt Simmons' presentations. Very sobering.

The most telling part was the one line from a Simmons' presentation, "If the U.S. conserves, all future problems are over". I don't know that we never have to worry again but this would go a long way. Thinking back on Cheney's comments in regards to conservation makes me so angry.

I lived through the '70's energy crises and for a short time back then thought that our society would change and adopt more rational habits of resource utilization. It is a tragedy, no a national disgrace, that we've gone in the opposite direction.

We've become so wasteful and self-centered that I can't even imagine a serious conservation campaign in today's political and social environment. To start with it would take honest leadership, something sadly lacking on the national scene. Of course we can (and probably will) just wait for the shit to hit the fan and then try and deal with the shortages and price increases.

I also recently finished reading "Race to the Bottom" and was feeling pretty bummed about what has been done to our economy. Now I'm aware of the lurking natural gas crisis.

It's enough to make you consider becoming a survivalist but my family would just think I've gone insane.