Making the search for gas easier

Gas and oil deposits in shale have no place to hide from an Oak Ridge National Laboratory technique that provides an inside look at pores and reveals structural information potentially vital to the nation's energy needs. Researchers were able to describe a small-angle neutron scattering technique that, combined with electron microscopy and theory, can be used to examine the function of pore sizes.

Using their technique at the General Purpose SANS instrument at the High Flux Isotope Reactor, scientists showed there is significantly higher local structural order than previously believed in nanoporous carbons. This is important because it allows scientists to develop modeling methods based on local structure of carbon atoms. Researchers also probed distribution of adsorbed gas molecules at unprecedented smaller length scales, allowing them to devise models of the pores.

While traditional methods provide general information about adsorption averaged over an entire sample, they do not provide insight into how pores of different sizes contribute to the total adsorption capacity of a material. Unlike absorption, a process involving the uptake of a gas or liquid in some bulk porous material, adsorption involves the adhesion of atoms, ions or molecules to a surface.

This research, in conjunction with previous work, allows scientists to analyze two-dimensional images to understand how local structures can affect the accessibility of shale pores to natural gas. Together, the application of neutron scattering, electron microscopy and theory can lead to new design concepts for building novel nanoporous materials with properties tailored for the environment and energy storage-related technologies. These include capture and sequestration of human-made greenhouse gases, hydrogen storage, membrane gas separation, environmental remediation and catalysis.

Meanwhile, after 10 years of production, shale gas in the United States cannot be considered commercially viable, according to several scientists presenting at the Geological Society of America meeting in Denver on Monday. They argue that while the use of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling for "tight oil" is an important contributor to U.S. energy supply, it is not going to result in long-term sustainable production or allow the U.S. to become a net oil exporter.

India stepping on the shale wagon

India cleared the way for shale-gas exploration last week. The country meets nearly three-fourths of its energy needs through imports and it has been working on its coal and shale-gas policies for more than two years. The country has the world's fourth largest coal deposits as well as significant untapped shale-gas and oil potential.

In the first phase, the country seeks to allow two state-run companies—Oil & Natural Gas Corp. and Oil India Ltd -- to explore for and produce shale oil and gas in blocks they already control. Later, the government will allow other state-backed companies as well as private companies into shale-gas exploration and production, said one cabinet minister who didn't wish to be named.

India has about 63 trillion cubic feet of recoverable shale-gas reserves—more than 20 times the size of India's biggest-ever gas discovery and enough, if proven, to run the country's gas-fired power stations for 20 years or more, analysts say.

This comes at a time when concerns are rising over the environmental impacts of fracking – the process of drilling the shale deposits- in the US where shale gas is now being harvested. Worries about triggering quakes and pollution of groundwater have been some of the major areas of debate. Can India handle the same?

The surge in IEA's predictions

The supply shock created by a ‘surge’ in North American oil production will be as transformative to the market over the next five years as was the rise of Chinese demand over the last 15, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said in its annual Medium-Term Oil Market Report (MTOMR) released last week. The shift will not only cause oil companies to overhaul their global investment strategies, but also reshape the way oil is transported, stored and refined.

According to the MTOMR, the effects of continued growth in North American supply – led by US light, tight oil (LTO) and Canadian oil sands – will cascade through the global oil market. Although shale oil development outside North America may not be a large-scale reality during the report’s five-year timeframe, the technologies responsible for the boom will increase production from mature, conventional fields – causing companies to reconsider investments in higher-risk areas.

The MTOMR forecasts North American supply to grow by 3.9 million barrels per day (mb/d) from 2012 to 2018, or nearly two-thirds of total forecast non-OPEC supply growth of 6 mb/d. World liquid production capacity is expected to grow by 8.4 mb/d – significantly faster than demand – which is projected to expand by 6.9 mb/d. Global refining capacity will post even steeper growth, surging by 9.5 mb/d, led by China and the Middle East.

So is it time to rejoice, having found the silver bullet??

Experts see a controversy in IEA’s stance across a few months. Its 2012 World Energy Outlook released in November prophesied that world demand would reach 99.7 mbpd by 2035. The MTOMR now projects that world demand will reach 96.7 mbpd just five years from now, implying a growth trajectory far in excess of that projected in the agency's 2012 report.

The IEA makes no attempt to understand the effect that high prices have on the world economy and its ability to grow under such circumstances. Nor does it address the dampening effect of high prices on demand, calling into question its projection of rapid increases in demand, say some.

Above all, what about climate change concerns?? Burning all the known reserves of fossil fuels would put us on a path to a climate catastrophe, something the IEA acknowledged in the executive summary of its 2012 World Energy Outlook saying, "No more than one-third of proven reserves of fossil fuels can be consumed prior to 2050 if the world is to achieve the 2°C goal, unless carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology is widely deployed." How come it is now singing to the shale tune?? How did the media miss all the controversies? Was it carried away by promises of plenty from ‘surging’oil and natural gas supplies in North America?? 

Either... or...

Are oil and gas developers at eternal odds with the environmentalists? As Forbes reports, public policy is often reactive, necessitating immediate action after the fact. If things get desperate, more oil drilling would occur to meet demand and to curb prices both in California and elsewhere.

At issue now is the Monterey Shale in California, a formation holding more shale oil than anywhere else in the country. It could be a potential gold mine if developers could find a way to extract it and if regulators could appease the environmental community there. Governor Jerry Brown says that California needs that oil wealth and that the state’s regulators could ensure that the drilling techniques meet strict standards. “We want to get the greenhouse gas emissions down, but we also want to keep our economy going.” The universal dilemma stated there!

The region holds 15.4 billion barrels of recoverable crude oil, says the U.S. Energy Information Administration. According to a study done by the University of Southern California, tapping the Monterey Shale would bring in 2.8 million new jobs while raising an additional $25 billion in new revenues by the end of the decade.

Monterey geological formation is uncommon, and at present, hydraulic fracturing cannot work there. Fracking is the controversial method by which producers extract tight oil and gas — a process that uses a concoction of water, sand and chemicals to break those deposits free from the rocks where they rest a mile beneath the ground.

Throughout the country, new areas are opening up to shale development, with restrictions. While industry is complaining that such oversight is burdensome, environmentalists are dismayed that pristine regions are even accessible. How does one promote economic development while limiting emissions and degradation – that is the billion dollar question, clearly for nations across the globe.

Cheap shale oil disadvantages renewables

A worldwide expansion of relatively cheap shale oil could put investment in renewable energy and global emissions targets under threat, as well as posing other environmental risks. The shale oil industry has the potential to reach up to 12 per cent of global production, potentially pushing down oil prices by as much as $50 per barrel by 2035, according to a new report by consultancy firm PwC.

Lower oil prices are more likely to extend production rather than simply increase it, but this could make alternative low carbon technologies less attractive, Jonathan Grant, director of sustainability and climate change at PwC, told BusinessGreen.

However, the report also notes that cheaper oil could displace production from higher cost and more environmentally sensitive areas such as the Arctic and Canadian tar sands, while tax windfalls could provide finance for carbon capture and storage and other low carbon technologies

It adds that global GDP could receive a $2.7tr boost by 2035 with a 25 per cent to 40 per cent cut in global oil prices resulting from shale oil production. Under this scenario, UK GDP would receive a 3.3 per cent boost in 2035, China would see a three per cent GDP increase, US GDP would rise 4.7 per cent, and India's would climb by up to 7.3 per cent.

Any related reduction in renewable energy investments and an expected increase in mobility arising from the availability of lower cost oil is likely to increase total carbon emissions in the long term and potentially impair future economic growth.

In the US, shale oil production has risen from 111,000 barrels per day in 2004 to 553,000 barrels a day in 2011, equivalent to an annual growth rate of around 26 per cent. In the rest of the world the industry remains in its early stages, although China, Australia, Mexico, Argentina, Russia, and New Zealand are all exploring the potential for shale oil development.

A Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) spokesman said there is no estimate of potential reserves in the UK and to date there have been no explorations, adding the energy source is "not on the horizon" for the country at the moment.

Supporters of shale gas argue that the fuel source can deliver net carbon savings by replacing coal, but shale oil remains significantly more carbon intensive raising concerns that the availability of a new cheaper source of oil will only lead to higher overall emissions.

US could beat Saudi to top oil position!

The latest IEA report predicts that a relatively new technology for extracting oil from shale rock could make the United States the world’s leading oil producer within a decade, beating the current leader, Saudi Arabia. The International Energy Agency estimates that US production could reach 11.1 million barrels per day by 2020, almost entirely because of increases in the production of shale oil, which is extracted using the same horizontal drilling and fracking techniques that have flooded the U.S. with cheap natural gas.

As of the end of 2011, production had already increased to 8.1 million barrels per day, almost entirely because of shale oil. Production from two major shale resources in the U.S.—the Bakken formation in North Dakota and Montana and the Eagle Ford shale in Texas, now total about 900,000 barrels per day. In comparison, Saudi Arabia is expected to produce 10.6 million barrels per day in 2020. The shale oil resource, however, is limited. The IEA expects production to start gradually declining by the mid-2020s, at which time Saudi Arabia will reclaim the top spot.

Shale oil is creating a surge in U.S. oil production in part because it’s easy to find, says David

Houseknecht, a scientist at the U.S. Geological Survey. The oil is spread over large areas, compared to the relatively small pockets of more conventional oil deposits in the United States.

Just how much shale oil can be produced—and how fast—depends heavily on two factors: the price of oil, and how easy it is to overcome possible local objections to oil fracking, says Richard Sears, a former executive at Royal Dutch Shell and a visiting scientist at MIT.

Oil shale costs significantly more to produce than oil in Saudi Arabia and many other parts of the world, so for oil companies to go after this resource, oil prices need to stay relatively high. Concerns that fracking will contaminate drinking water have led to objections in some areas, as have concerns that shale oil requires far more drilling wells than conventional oil production.

The IEA does conclude that the United States will nearly be energy self-sufficient by 2035, but that’s after offsetting oil imports with exports of coal and natural gas. To be truly energy independent, the United States would have to invest in technology for converting natural gas and coal into the liquid fuels needed for transportation, or have other technical breakthroughs, such as improved batteries or biofuels, that would quickly reduce the demand for oil.

Shale gas - a winner?

Shale gas is one of the lowest carbon sources of natural gas. Shale gas produced using fracking may have lower life cycle greenhouse gas emissions than conventional gas. If that sounds controversial, check out a report in recent Environmental Science and Technology, that “shale gas life-cycle [greenhouse gas] emissions are 6% lower than conventional natural gas”.

It goes on to substantiate the claim by saying the lower emissions are due to the fact that multiple horizontal wells (used when tapping shale gas) can be drilled from a single well pad. In conventional vertical drilling, there is one pad per well. In horizontal drilling, there are typically six to eight wells drilled from one pad. This means less equipment, less surface disruption, and fewer opportunities for leaks on the surface. Fewer leaks mean lesser methane escaping!

The report further notes that all types of natural gas represent a huge opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Agreeing that Methane leaks and water management are two of the biggest issues, and must be addressed, it says that natural gas, with fracking, (which it claims is not the cause of water pollution) is still a clear winner. Especially when compared to coal!!

If China builds one new coal plant per week, that translates to about 450 million tons of added carbon emissions each year. If China just built natural gas plants instead of coal plants, it would reduce added emissions by between 150 and 270 million tons per year (depending on the type of coal and power plant, natural gas typically has between 30% and 60% less GHG emissions than coal). That reduction in emissions would be like taking roughly 40 million cars off the road.

Any thoughts?

Shale concerns

Some more news on shale gas and fracking! After deciding to ban shale gas exploration, the French government seems to have second thoughts. Perhaps inspired by the UK climate panel report.

Meanwhile, a new study on emissions on natural gas throws up a different picture from that painted by Cornell University last month. The Cornell study had found that GHG footprint of shale gas was more than natural gas, and even coal. But now, National Energy Technology Laboratory in the US has recently released its own study showing a different result.

NETL looked at both a 100-year timeframe and a 20-year time frame, and in both cases found that life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions from natural gas were substantially lower than coal. According to the findings, natural gas emitted 50% fewer emissions than coal over a 20-year GWP and emitted 55% fewer emissions over a 100-year GWP.

These studies do not, however, factor in the concerns about methane release into water or whether fracturing fluids will cause environmental and health problems. As NETL concludes in the study: “All opportunities need to be evaluated on a sustainable energy basis: Environmental performance, economic performance and social performance.” How pertinent, but how often neglected.

UK Panel sees no danger in fracking

Talk of techno-fix and here is more on shale gas and fracking!

A UK parliamentary committee has ruled that shale gas drilling poses no risks to the country’s water supplies and should be given the go ahead for development. According to the Energy and Climate Change Committee, which published its report a day ago, a moratorium on shale gas drilling in the UK is neither justified nor necessary.

“There appears to be nothing inherently dangerous about the process of ‘fracking’ itself and as long as the integrity of the well is maintained shale gas extraction should be safe,” says committee chair Tim Yeo MP. “There has been a lot of hot air recently about the dangers of shale gas drilling, but our inquiry found no evidence to support the main concern – that UK water supplies would be put at risk.”

The UK has considerable shale gas reserves, according the British Geological Survey data cited by the report. While onshore shale gas resources could total 150 billion cubic metres – equivalent to around 18 months of UK gas consumption, offshore resources could “dwarf” these.

As well as concerns about contamination of aquifers, environmentalists have also raised concerns about emissions from shale gas, which is primarily methane – a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. But the Committee’s report argues that UK regulations are much tougher than those in the US and will be more effective in minimising leaks from wells or pipelines.

A witches brew

Natural gas from shale formations is the new kid on the block. But it is not without its share of dangers, as media attention in the US shows.

The gas, which is trapped in tiny bubble-like pockets in the rock, is procured by forcefully injecting chemicals diluted with millions of gallons of water into the rock. This fracking ruptures the earth, creating fissures through which the gas passes -- along with a brew of carcinogens, acutely poisonous heavy metals, and radioactive elements.

Uranium, radium, and radon make the shale so radioactive that companies sometimes drop Geiger counters into wells to determine whether they have reached the gas-rich deposits. But those compounds are almost benign compared to the fracking fluids that drillers inject into the wells. Some of these are very dangerous to human health.

Among other pollutants which fracking produces is ozone in large quantities and the damage to crops from ozone is well known.

Before more nations join the US and others in the rush to exploit this source, it may be wise to look into these aspects and put in place safety measures before drilling. Short-term benefits have to be balanced with long-term damage.

Blacker than coal!

In the desperate search for new sources of energy, natural gas from shale has sent many enterprises drilling away new areas, and not only in the US. But is this any cleaner source than coal?

Researchers at Cornell University are raising alarms over the expected increase in use of natural gas from shale deposits. They argue that replacing coal and gasoline with natural-gas alternatives could worsen, rather than improve, the impact of greenhouse gases. The greenhouse-gas footprint of shale gas over a 20-year period is at least 20 percent higher than that of coal and "perhaps more than twice as great," they say in a study published online in the journal Climatic Change.

To extract natural gas from shale, drillers hydraulically fracture the rock by injecting a cocktail of water and chemicals into a horizontally drilled well at high pressures. A significant amount of gas also mixes with the water-chemical mix and escapes into the atmosphere when the fluid returns to the surface. The drilling out of well plugs that separate fracking stages also results in temporary emission releases, giving shale gas a "significantly larger" greenhouse-gas footprint than conventional natural gas.

When burned to generate electricity, natural gas emits roughly half as much carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour as coal. But over its life cycle, natural gas could result in far more greenhouse-gas emissions, whether through intentional venting, equipment leaks, or fracking. And the leaks would consist of methane, which is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

Of course, as the Cornell study points out, thera are ways that drillers and pipeline operations could reduce methane emissions by up to 90 percent. But, these technologies are currently not in wide use.

Well, the hunt goes on as an energy hungry civilisation keeps at it.