Posted on 07/30/2006 10:04:42 PM PDT by GeronL
This week we’re going to refine the argument for natural gas as a comprehensive solution to high energy prices, energy pollution, and energy dependence upon foreign producers outlined in What Bush Can Do To Get Cheaper Gas. To summarize: the solution is for Bush to allow oil & gas companies to extract the vast amounts of NG we have within American boundaries, cut state residents in on the royalties, provide tax credits for folks to run NG in their cars, and before his presidency is over the equivalent cost of driving a car will be less than $1 a gallon.Now for the refinement — of the argument, not NG, which unlike crude oil requires no refining. Seen those full page newspaper ads placed by Chevron trying to frighten you with the claim that the US only has three measly percent of the world’s natural gas supply? Whatever the Chevron’s agenda is, it’s not about telling you the truth.
The SEC makes it a federal felony for an energy company to claim gas reserves as assets if they’re not determined by obsolete technology, i.e., you have to drill a hole. Modern 3D seismic methods get a far better picture of an NG reservoir — but since you don't have to drill a hole, whatever reserves are found by 3DS, the SEC won’t allow it.
The government screws things up more — much more — by not allowing gas exploration companies to survey the offshore continental shelf of over 90 per cent of the US coastline excluding Alaska. They can survey along the coasts of Texas and Louisiana — but not Washington, Oregon, California, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, Georgia, the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and New England.
There’s likely as much gas off the mouth of the Columbia River as the Mississippi, possibly the same with Chesapeake Bay and the Hudson River. The gas companies know there are fantastic amounts of gas off California, Florida, and much of the eastern seaboard — but the government won’t let them have it.
Gas exploration is not allowed on much of federal land — and one third of the US is owned by the Feds. On what little land they can explore, with 3DS they are discovering huge amounts in “low-permeability reservoirs” — some 460 tcf (trillion cubic feet), tripling alone current US gas reserves.
Put this all together and you have US gas reserves ten to twenty times as greater as the 150 tcf or “3 percent” of world reserves. This is enough to last the US for decades to come, even if we double or triple NG use (which we will with the Natural Gas Solution — the US currently uses some 22 tcf a year).
It's also enough to provide a lot of mailbox money for residents of states producing NG on federal land or offshore. A one-third cut of all federal royalties will overcome state residents' NIMBY (not-in-my-backyard) objections (1/3 to Feds, 1/3 to states/ 1/3 to state residents).
What NG we produce, we consume. Crude oil is different. However much more we produce, it will bid for by the world market, such as China and India, because oil is cheaply shipped by ocean tanker. (Japan buys a lot of our Alaska oil, for example).
NG has to liquefied to be shipped over oceans, a costly and dangerous procedure. The only cost-effective way to transport NG is by pipeline. NG extracted offshore just needs a few miles of pipe laid on fairly level ocean floor to hook it up to the existing pipeline network in any US coastal state. Neither the Chinese nor Indians nor other global folks will bid against it. NG is the way to achieve American energy independence.
And do so as an environmentalist’s dream, for NG burns so cleanly, reducing both CO2 emissions and air pollution. That’s because NG is 80 percent hydrogen. There are 4 atoms of hydrogen for every one atom of carbon in NG. There are only 2 atoms of hydrogen for every one atom of carbon in regular gas. Thus NG emits much less carbon in the atmosphere.
There’s a lot of futuristic talk about the “hydrogen economy,” hydrogen as an ultimate energy source. Given the same size/weight of the pressure tank, NG delivers far more energy than hydrogen: 16 pounds of NG take up the same space as 2 pounds of hydrogen. Your car's trunk isn’t big enough to handle a hydrogen tank capable of driving a few hundred miles — but it can do so with an NG tank.
What really nixes hydrogen is a feature called “embrittlement.” Hydrogen atoms ooze their way into grains of steel and make it as brittle as glass. So you need special high-nickel steel pressure tanks and pipelines. You can’t transport hydrogen in existing NG pipelines — you’d have to build an impossibly costly additional pipeline system, or lug it in special trucks and railroad tank cars like ethanol.
Which brings me to the ludicrous rip-off of ethanol. Ethanol is carcinogenic (cancer-producing). It releases known carcinogens into the atmosphere: acetyl-eldehyde, and peroxy-acetyl-nitrate/nitrite/nitrile, three powerful eye and lung irritants.
Ethanol has only 2/3 the energy of regular gas, so you get 1/3 less energy per gallon, which means it adds 33 percent to the gas-per-mile cost of driving. But there’s also the cost of ethanol transport, which is by truckload or railroad, much higher than by oil pipeline (which ethanol can’t use because it can’t handle any water seepage like oil can).
The argument that ethanol reduces emissions is a fraud. With a modern car engine’s oxygen sensors and computer-controlled fuel injection, there’s no difference in CO (carbon monoxide) coming out your tailpipe with regular gas or ethanol.
(Ever see the 1960s anti-war movie On The Beach? Remember when Fred Astaire kills himself by breathing the fumes of his prized sports car in his closed garage? A modern car doesn't emit enough CO for this to work anymore.)
The reason I’m discussing the ethanol fraud is that Archer-Daniels-Midland and the corn farmer lobby will go nuts in objecting to the Natural Gas Solution. Hell hath no fury than folks threatened with the elimination of their government subsidy. The question to ask the corn farmers is: if ethanol is so great, how come you don’t run your tractors with it and use (far more economical) diesel instead?
Not at normal regulated (1/2 psig) city gas pressures.
But will they be able to run these theoretical compressors with 1/2 psig upstream pressure? ...and fill up vehicles all over the neighborhood overnight? And how much electricity will that use? (And how much Nautural Gas will be required to generate it?)
Enquiring minds wanna know!
Wow, this article is an eye-opener. I'm sold. I didn't realize we had a huge supply of NG.
everything has drawbacks, NG has fewer in my opinion than ethonal, methanol, solar, wind and treadmill power schemes
I used to drive a Propane powered Jeep Wagoneer.
It drove OK, but was noticeably down on power compared to a gas engine.
If you ran out gas you had to call a tow-truck, you cannot get a ride to the station and fill a bucket or can with Propane, then pour it into the tank.
For purposes of this discussion I see Propane and Natural Gas as being essentially identical.
I can support the premise of the post, but only with the caveat that NG will work best for Gov. and large companies needs.
It's BEST use is electricity generation, which could transform our economy if it got cheap enough.
It really does have some drawbacks for individual use.
It would obviously start with larger companies and government but there would be a period of years for the system and infrastructure to be put into place.
BTW- ethanol also cuts down on the power
good post. well i for one see the answer in not giving way to any one solution. we should have everything, natural gas, nuclear, bio diesel, bio fuels, gasoline, wind, hydrogen..by a mix an match approach we get the best approach. i dont necessarily believe the oil companies, car companies are bad, we need their skills in changing. integration is the key IMHO.
this is all doable now, we just need someone to speartip it into the right direction. i also think it is a huge tool on the WOT. we keep our prices low and use the oil money we do buy as a tool for change. if we were only importing small percentages of oil (still huge money per annum) and indeed get other democracies to do the same, we could start to dicate to them what we need in place to buy oil, namely democracy. so instead of the islamic , dictator strangelholds, we could enforce change with the best tool of all...money.
i dont think it would take decades either. once we have a direction, it would be easier for the car companies to commit to this direction without shafting themselves. they win, we win..incentives by the government and more importantly some direction (which has started but i think it need more drive and purpose) will help no end also.
Welllll, actually, you can get equal or better power from Ethanol IF the engine is specially built just to run on it.
Watch a blown Alky rail dragster some time!
But the mileage will never equal what you can get from gasoline.
There are catalyst that can concentrate the HC in Ethanol to the same density as oil derived gasoline.
Of course that is not being pursued, it cuts the yield too much, and does not supplant gasoline as the fuel of choice.
100% of Alaskan North Slope oil is kept in America. This has been the case for all but 4 years of the nearly 3 decades of Alaskan oil production. Between 1996-1999 5.5% of North Slope oil was exported to Asian countries. These exports were overwhelmingly supported by the US Congress and by the Clinton Administration to offset an oil glut in California at the time. In June 2000 Alaskan North Slope oil again ceased to be exported, and 100% of Alaskan North Slope production has stayed in America. (Thanks Thackney)
What is NORM?
NORM, or naturally occurring radioactive material, is found almost everywhere. It is found in the air and in soil, and even in radioactive potassium in our own bodies. ...
...
NORM encountered in oil and gas exploration, development and production operations originates in subsurface formations, which may contain radioactive materials such as uranium and thorium and their daughter products, radium 226 and radium 228. NORM can be brought to the surface in the formation water that is produced in conjunction with oil and gas. NORM in these produced waters typically consists of the radionuclides, radium 226 and 228. In addition, radon gas, a radium daughter, may be found in produced natural gas.
Interesting. Thanks for posting.
This shows up in one out of two mentions of the hydrogen economy, and it just IS NOT TRUE. "Embrittlement" by hydrogen diffusion only happens at a high enough rate to be a problem at high temperatures. At room temperature (or less, since pipelines are typically underground), the reaction is so slow as to take centuries to cause a problem.
There is a mild steel pipeline in the Ruhr Valley that has been transporting hydrogen for a century now without problems. The ONLY change that will need to be made to NG pipelines to transport hydrogen is to put in bigger pumps.
I'd certainly love to see NG prices come down. Each year it's been skyrocketing during the winter, and I've seen my home heating bills go way up.
Also, one of the reason that electical bills are going up is that many power companies built supplemental NG fueled power plants when NG was cheap and plentiful, but now those plants are extremely expensive to run.
Mark
True. That's why you use fuel cells instead.
"The same applies to ethanol."
Not true. Your information is out of date.
"Methanol is OK if you work on your car three hours for every half hour in operation."
Not true. WHERE do you come up with this stuff???
Given the fact that the last "war" France won was against Greenpeace, they're no longer held hostage to the environmentalist whackos.
Mark
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.