Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

GOOGLE Frozen Methane Hydrate - I am sick of peak oil soothsayers
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/oilgas/hydrates/index.html ^

Posted on 06/13/2007 6:22:22 PM PDT by WBL 1952

Worldwide, estimates of the natural gas potential of methane hydrate approach 400 million trillion cubic feet -- a staggering figure compared to the 5,500 trillion cubic feet that make up the world's currently proven gas reserves.

OF COURSE THE PEOPLE THAT BELIEVE THE GLASS IS HALF EMPTY WILL COME UP WITH A DOZEN REASONS WHY THIS RESOURCE WON'T DO THE JOB OR WILL CONTRIBUTE TO GLOBAL WARMING.

I BELIEVE THE GLASS IS HALF FULL.

(Excerpt) Read more at fossil.energy.gov ...


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-52 next last
A methane hydrate is a cage-like lattice of ice, inside of which are trapped molecules of methane (the chief constituent of natural gas). In fact, the name for its parent class of compounds, "clathrates," comes from the Latin word meaning "to enclose with bars."

Methane hydrate form in generally two types of geologic settings: (1) on land in permafrost regions where cold temperatures persist in shallow sediments, and (2) beneath the ocean floor at water depths greater than about 500 meters (about 1,640 feet) where high pressures dominate. The hydrate deposits themselves may be several hundred meters thick.

Scientists have known about methane hydrate for a century or more. French scientists studied hydrate in 1890. In the 1930s, as natural gas pipelines were extended into colder climates, engineers discovered that hydrate, rather than ice, would form in the lines, often plugging the flow of gas.

These crystals, although unmistakably a combination of both water and natural gas, would often form at temperatures well above the freezing point of ordinary ice. Yet, for the next three decades, methane hydrate was considered only a nuisance, or at best, a laboratory oddity.

That viewpoint changed in 1964. In a northern Siberian gas field named Messoyakha, a Russian drilling crew discovered natural gas in the "frozen state," or in other words, methane hydrate occurring naturally. Subsequent reports of potentially vast deposits of "solid" natural gas in the former Soviet Union intensified interest and sent geologists worldwide on a search for how -- and where else -- methane hydrate might occur in nature. In the 1970s, hydrate was found in ocean sediments.

In late 1981, the drilling vessel Glomar Challenger, assigned by the National Science Foundation to explore off the coast of Guatemala, unexpectedly bored into a methane hydrate deposit. Unlike previous drilling operations which had encountered evidence of hydrate, researchers onboard the Challenger were able to recover a sample intact.

Today, methane hydrate has been detected around most continental margins. Around the United States, large deposits have been identified and studied in Alaska, the west coast from California to Washington, the east coast, including the Blake Ridge offshore of the Carolinas, and in the Gulf of Mexico.

In 1995, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) completed its most detailed assessment of U.S. gas hydrate resources. The USGS study estimated the in-place gas resource within the gas hydrate of the United States ranges from 112,000 trillion cubic feet to 676,000 trillion cubic feet, with a mean value of 320,000 trillion cubic feet of gas. Subsequent refinements of the data in 1997 using information from the Ocean Drilling Program have suggested that the mean should be adjusted slightly downward, to around 200,000 trillion cubic feet -- still larger by several orders of magnitude than previously thought and dwarfing the estimated 1,400 trillion cubic feet of conventional recoverable gas resources and reserves in the United States.

Worldwide, estimates of the natural gas potential of methane hydrate approach 400 million trillion cubic feet -- a staggering figure compared to the 5,500 trillion cubic feet that make up the world's currently proven gas reserves.

Why the new interest? If only one percent of the methane hydrate resource could be made technically and economically recoverable, the United States could more than double its domestic natural gas resource base.

Natural gas is an important energy source for the domestic economy, providing almost 23 percent of all energy used. Natural gas has also proven to be a reliable and efficient energy source that is less polluting than other fossil fuels and is the least carbon intensive.

Historically, the United States has produced much of the natural gas it has consumed with the balance imported from Canada through pipelines, although recently, imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) have supplemented imports from Canada. By 2025, the Energy Information Administration estimates natural gas imports will be more than 2.5 times greater than in 2003, and will supply 28 percent of total domestic natural gas consumption.

The United States will consume increasing volumes of natural gas well into the 21st century. U.S. natural gas consumption is expected to increase from about 22 trillion cubic feet today to nearly 31 trillion cubic feet in 2025 - a projected increase of over 40 percent.

Natural gas is expected to take on a greater role in power generation, largely because of increasing pressure for clean fuels and the relatively low capital costs of building new natural gas-fired power equipment. Should the nation move to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, as part of our commitment to greenhouse gas reduction, the use natural gas potentially could increase even more.

Given the growing demand for natural gas, the development of new, cost-effective supplies can play a major role in moderating price increases and ensuring adequate future supplies of natural gas for American consumers.

OF COURSE THE PEOPLE THAT BELIEVE THE GLASS IS HALF EMPTY WILL COME UP WITH A DOZEN REASONS WHY THIS RESOURCE WON'T DO THE JOB OR WILL CONTRIBUTE TO GLOBAL WARMING.

I BELIEVE THE GLASS IS HALF FULL.

1 posted on 06/13/2007 6:22:24 PM PDT by WBL 1952
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: WBL 1952
It's great stuff.

I just wish Bill Gates would take $20B to solve the problems of mining this stuff. I'm convinced that he'd make a staggering profit, ignite a huge economic boom in this country, and largely free the world of the grip of islamic fascism. Well worth the expenditure.

2 posted on 06/13/2007 6:25:20 PM PDT by ClearCase_guy (Enoch Powell was right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WBL 1952
We need to figure out a way to capture livestock flatulence. Maybe a diaper or bag of some sort, I dunno.
3 posted on 06/13/2007 6:27:24 PM PDT by Jaysun (It's like people who hate corn bread and hate anchovies, but love cornchovie bread.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Richard Branson and George Soros and others are willing to blow all kinds of money on doing anything other tha actually solving these problems.


4 posted on 06/13/2007 6:27:46 PM PDT by cripplecreek (Greed is NOT a conservative ideal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Mostly a self-ping. :’) Another methane hydrate topic. There’s enough *known* gas hydrates on the US continental shelf to supply US energy needs for a looooong time.


5 posted on 06/13/2007 6:32:34 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Time heals all wounds, particularly when they're not yours. Profile updated June 8, 2007.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WBL 1952
Say what you will about peak oil theory, methane hydrate is neat stuff.

"WHY THIS RESOURCE WON'T DO THE JOB OR WILL CONTRIBUTE TO GLOBAL WARMING"

Well it would, thats just how physics and chemistry works. It's still neat stuff.
6 posted on 06/13/2007 6:34:25 PM PDT by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WBL 1952

The problem with hydrates is getting them from where they are to a place where we can use them.


7 posted on 06/13/2007 6:39:01 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ndt

“”Say what you will about peak oil theory, methane hydrate is neat stuff. “WHY THIS RESOURCE WON’T DO THE JOB OR WILL CONTRIBUTE TO GLOBAL WARMING”Well it would, thats just how physics and chemistry works. It’s still neat stuff.””

Only if you believe in global warming. Apparently you do. I believe in climate change. I believe that when you could no longer grow crops in Greenland because it turned too cold; man had nothing to do with that either.


8 posted on 06/13/2007 6:39:07 PM PDT by WBL 1952
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Jaysun
"We need to figure out a way to capture livestock flatulence. Maybe a diaper or bag of some sort, I dunno...

When they line up for milking, just tell them, "Just f*rt in the hose, there, Bossie..."

9 posted on 06/13/2007 6:39:16 PM PDT by redhead ("Ah works dirty, but Ah does a clean job..." --Nightmare Alice in Li'l Abner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

“The problem with hydrates is getting them from where they are to a place where we can use them.”

Somehow I just know that same argument came up when somebody else realized that black oily stuff in the ground burns and it could use it as fuel.

There is always somebody around to remind others how ridiculous their idea is.


10 posted on 06/13/2007 6:42:56 PM PDT by WBL 1952
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: WBL 1952
"Only if you believe in global warming. Apparently you do."

The issue is not does an increase in carbon in the atmosphere increase the capture of heat, that is a very easily testable claim. Yes it does. You would have to deny basic chemistry and physics to deny it.

The question is, is it sufficient to alter the measurable weather patterns.
11 posted on 06/13/2007 6:43:04 PM PDT by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: WBL 1952

The global warmists will indeed object to this. “You’re adding carbon to the atmosphere!”


12 posted on 06/13/2007 6:43:28 PM PDT by RightOnTheLeftCoast ([Thompson 2008!])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ndt

“The issue is not does an increase in carbon in the atmosphere increase the capture of heat, that is a very easily testable claim. Yes it does. You would have to deny basic chemistry and physics to deny it.

The question is, is it sufficient to alter the measurable weather patterns.”

and just what does water vapor do in the atmosphere since there is hundreds of times the amount of it versus co2????

my braintrust tells me water vapor is 100 times the global warming cause than co2 is. how do we stop water from evaporating einstein????


13 posted on 06/13/2007 6:45:42 PM PDT by WBL 1952
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: WBL 1952

I like to think that much of it is due to the activities of Mr Sun...:)

but that would just make too much sense, wouldn’t it?


14 posted on 06/13/2007 6:48:19 PM PDT by stefanbatory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ndt

CO2 increases follow rather than precede warming.


15 posted on 06/13/2007 6:50:18 PM PDT by steve8714 ("A man needs a maid", my ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: steve8714
"CO2 increases follow rather than precede warming."

I assume you are assuming but not mentioning bounds on that statement? Because it sure does not hold true in a beaker.
16 posted on 06/13/2007 6:53:40 PM PDT by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: WBL 1952
"and just what does water vapor do in the atmosphere since there is hundreds of times the amount of it versus co2"

Depends, it can block light and reflect it back into space resulting in the opposite effect. We commonly refer to them as clouds.

"my braintrust tells me water vapor is 100 times the global warming cause than co2 is."

Well your brain trust appears to be smoking crack. Walk outside on a cloudy (high water vapor)day and say that with a straight face. May I ask who these brainy ones are?
17 posted on 06/13/2007 6:57:22 PM PDT by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ndt

I know a guy like you. Is your name Dave and do you know everything and are you always right?

I find your “matter of fact” answers naive and phony.


18 posted on 06/13/2007 7:05:17 PM PDT by WBL 1952
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: WBL 1952
"and do you know everything and are you always right?"

I'm willing to review any evidence you choose to present. The fact that CO2 traps heat is a simple experiment to run, there is no mysterious hard to divine results, it just does.

1 - CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere
2 - Fossil fuel usage results in a net annual increase of CO2
3 - CO2 in the atmosphere is higher then at any time int he last 650,000 years

Those are testable facts. If you want to dispute them then all you have to do is show where any of them are wrong.

Like I said, the question is, is the increase sufficient to alter the weather patterns and that is still open to debate.
19 posted on 06/13/2007 7:17:21 PM PDT by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: WBL 1952

“Dave and do you know everything and are you always right?”

Oh, ya. No, my name is not Dave and I have no idea who that might be.


20 posted on 06/13/2007 7:19:27 PM PDT by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-52 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson