The coming Natural gas problem..

[4dsc]

http://www.npc.org/

These comments are taken from the oildrum..

Click on the natural gas link and look below the book at the top with the blue flame..."Balancing Natural Gas Policy"....For "Volume I, Summary of Findings and Recommendations", it is a large PDF file, but well worth the download.

We are in danger of facing a major natural gas shortfall between now and 2010 unless demand levels or drops (weather and outsourcing of nat gas intensive industries are the two huge factors on demand

Despite the claim that "enviro/green wackos" are the cause of the problem, the report takes the position that even if all "moratoria areas" are thrown open (they used a projected opening of all moratoria areas by 2006, which of course has not occured) we still face a large natural gas shortfall due to domestic U.S. production declines, Canadian production declines, and rising demand

LNG is the only large scale "bridge" supply that can be brought on fast. The Alaska nat gas pipeline will take years, and a very high price for nat gas must be maintained to make it viable. Unconventional supplies, even if developed rapidly, produce at slower rates than conventional supplies and are expensive to this point.

Now, here's the shocker. If demand continues at the current rate of increase, even LNG...IF IT IS IMPLEMENTED ON SCHEDULE, will fail to make up the shortfall. We know of course that the LNG plan is behind schedule, with lawsuits and bitter local opposition on safety concerns, increasing concern about where that much nat gas will come from, and financial backing pulling out of deals (the Florida Power and Light withdrawal from the Bermuda terminal and pipeline being the biggest example)

The principle conclusion is this: We must develop all the possible options listed above, and then on top of that, have SUBSTANTIAL DEMAND DESTRUCTION of natural gas demand to avoid a major shortfall.

[The Backlash Cometh]

1. I'm confused.

Is it a good idea or bad idea to invest in a company that drills for natural gas? Sounds like they're saying that we desparately need more production, but don't count on it because of the public opposition.

[4dsc]

2. Use this reference

I recently posted another article about natural gas production and the many different ways there are to drill for it.. Its amazing to say the least about how much natural gas is under the US but its just plain hard to get it our of the ground. Check out http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/3/8/222920/5485#more Its long but a great read..

I believe that a natural gas crisis will hit us long before oil does.

[eallen]

3. It depends on the company, but many have done very well in recent years.

Look at what the Canadian O&G trusts have done. They typically pay dividends in the 8% to 11% range. The d****d Canadian government takes back 15% of that, if you're not Canadian. Still. The other problem is that they are priced quite high right now, three times what they were a few years back. There's the real question of how much higher O&G prices will go. My crystal ball is murky. Prices might go down from here, and the value of these stocks along with them. Of course, if the US goes to war with Iran, we might see oil at $100/bbl.

BTW, most such investments are some combination of oil and gas. You drill a hole, and sometimes you get a lot of gas, and then some oil, and sometimes you get a lot of oil, but only a little gas. And a lot of the time, you don't get squat. Any company that drills a lot of holes produces some mixture of the two.

:hippie:

[LiberalEsto]

4. This is such a pack of lies

The major component of natural gas is methane. Many things that can burn natural gas can also run on methane. But the natural gas lobby does not want you to know this.

There's a whole industry being developed to tap methane from landfills and use it for energy. There are dairy farms in Europe where the methane released via cow flatulence is captured and burned to provide heat in the barns.

See: http://www.epa.gov/methane/

and this is from the http://pennstatebehrend.psu.edu/academic/science/degrees/biology/energyfieldtrips/methaneIndex.htm web site:

Farm Methane
Unless you have worked with large quantities of animal manure you probably do not appreciate the meaning of farm methane. Farm methane is a continuous source. “Animals make manure while the sun doesn't shine, the wind doesn't blow and when there is not enough rain” ((L.T. Goodlife Publishing Company, Inc. 2004). Methane digesters use anaerobic bacteria to decomposes the manure. The resulting methane is called biogas. Biogas can be burned in internal combustion engines that turn turbines that produce electricity. After the methane has been removed, the remaining organic material from the manure can be used as fertilizer. Farm methane is very beneficial because it captures methane that would otherwise be released into the atmosphere. Collecting this methane kills pathogens, reduces farm odors, reduces fly reproduction, kills weed seeds, improves manure manageability, and simultaneously produces domestic renewable energy (L.T. Goodlife Publishing Company, Inc. 2004).

[4dsc]

5. No lies here

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/3/4/203628/2648

Using manure as power sounds like a good idea, but it's not. The energy that can be generated from manure is not worth the expense. And by lowering industrial animal operations' cost of production, subsidizing manure power pushes family farms further toward the brink of extinction. Our money would be better spent investing in truly sustainable, sensible ways of producing energy and food.

[buddysmellgood]

9. It works in Europe under subsidies. They also run digesters on food waste.

The economic problem with generating power from manure is in collecting the manure. The transportation costs kill the profit. That will go away as the price of natural gas goes up. The other thing one needs is an additional carbohydrate source like rendered animal waste. It's not that it's not worth the expense, it's that the benefits of generating power from manure are not factored in. We subsidize lots of different kinds of power generation. Allowing methane to escape into the atmosphere without capture the energy is just waste.

[NickB79]

7. There isn't enough manure available

20% of our electricity in this country is provided by natural gas, and it is used to synthesize chemical fertilizers as well. Methane generation may work at a local level, ie the farmer using it to cut his heating bills, but cities? Industry? The supply simply isn't there for widespread substitution of natural gas at this time.

[jpak]

8. 300 million Americans make a lot of "manure" each day

....and we currently treat this sewage with aerobic digestion sewage systems (and have to dispose of enormous quantities of sewage sludge as well).

Sewage treatment is an absolute public heath necessity. Converting current aerobic systems to anaerobic biogas plants would produce enough energy (most, if not all and then some) to operate the plants, perhaps sell excess power and biogas, and significantly reduce the amount of sewage sludge produced each year.

No panacea but part of the solution.

The only way we are going to survive the looming gas (and oil) crisis, is through:

(1) home energy efficiency: insulation, E-Star windows, high SEER heat pumps, CF light bulbs, etc., (especially in the Northeast).

(2) domestic renewable energy systems: roof top PV, solar hot water, pellet stoves, and liquid biofuels (everywhere).

(3) utility scale solar electricity: solar stirling, solar trough and PV....especially in the South and Southwest where summer peak AC loads are high...

(4) producing anhydrous ammonia fertilizer using hydrogen produced from wind power and electrolysis of water.

(5) reduce or eliminate farm NG use using solar thermal for crop drying and biogas from manure.

...and we better start doing all this PDQ...

...and the first step is kicking the fucking GOP out of "Warshington" DC....

[buddysmellgood]

10. Many plants already capture gas and produce electricity to run the pumps

etc.

[depakid]

6. Bottom line

There's a limited amount of natural gas, and it's already in depletion in North America. Much of the rest of the supply is located in countries where people don't like us, and LNG is a very expensive process that won't make up for the shortfalls.

People who use natural gas for heating are going to find not too far down the line that it's more economical invest in warm clothes.

[4dsc]

11. Well put

I'm wondering just how they would divide up limited supplies of natural gas in this country?? Who would get a share of the dwindling supply?? Energy companies first?? Consumers??

[jpak]

12. There was a study first published in 1986

by the University of New Hampshire Complex Systems Center called:

Beyond Oil: The Threat to Fuel and Food in the Coming Decades

The authors concluded that the US will have to make the tough decisions how to allocate dwindling supplies of natural gas by 2020...

The choice was between agriculture and fuel - either we choose to eat and freeze to death in the dark, or slowly starve under electric lights in warm houses...

It was not a pretty picture.

In the near term, when there is a severe shortage of natural gas, homeowners have priority over electric utilities - which opens up a large can of worms.

If, during a severe cold snap in the Northeast, gas to power plants is curtailed, there may be blackouts (rolling or sustained). Homeowners with oil burners need electricity to keep the pipes from bursting, and people with electric heat would SOL.

Lots of people would be very cold and very pissed off...

[4dsc]

13. Thanks for the reference..

This make alot of sense..

Beyond Oil concludes that the U.S. cannot increase its per capita material standard of living and its population ad infinitum. The belief that it can do so is a myth that arose from a century of economic success. Yes, the United States has increased its material wealth tremendously. But this wealth was created by the United States depleting its high-quality deposits of nonrenewable resources and degrading high-quality renewable resources. Yes, the technologies by which humans convert natural resources to economic wealth have changed at an amazing rate. But the strategy by which these technologies increased output remained the same: by using energy to increase the work that could be done by muscle power alone. Furthermore, our economic success has allowed us to ignore an underlying truth. The relation among resources, energy use, and economic activity is stronger than economists or politicians are willing to admit. Taken together, dependence on a depleting resource base implies that either the population or per capita-material standard of living must stabilize, or both.

http://dieoff.org/page154.htm